BARODA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Asst

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

disallowance was made with respect to the same, viz i. interest and dividend income earned from the investments made in other cooperative societies, deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act amounting to Rs.70,19,145

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 25. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the assessment order on various reasoning including on account of notice issued under section 148 r.w.s. 150(2) of the Act which was time barred, assessment was made without issuing valid notice under

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 25. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the assessment order on various reasoning including on account of notice issued under section 148 r.w.s. 150(2) of the Act which was time barred, assessment was made without issuing valid notice under

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

145 taxmann.com 233\n(Amritsar - Trib.) wherein it was held that where the Assessing Officer had\nmade an ad hoc disallowance of 10% of total expenses without specifying\nany particular lacuna in the evidences, such disallowance was not\nsustainable in law and deserved to be deleted. The learned DR, on the other\nhand, relied on the reasoning given

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowed the deduction by contending that the loan was not part of profit and loss account and therefore the amount not recoverable is a capital loss. The AO further held that the Appellant is not engaged in the business of money lending, therefore conditions prescribed u/s 36(2)(i) are not satisfied.  The CIT(A) accepted the contention

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowed the deduction by contending that the loan was not part of profit and loss account and therefore the amount not recoverable is a capital loss. The AO further held that the Appellant is not engaged in the business of money lending, therefore conditions prescribed u/s 36(2)(i) are not satisfied.  The CIT(A) accepted the contention

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowed the deduction by contending that the loan was not part of profit and loss account and therefore the amount not recoverable is a capital loss. The AO further held that the Appellant is not engaged in the business of money lending, therefore conditions prescribed u/s 36(2)(i) are not satisfied.  The CIT(A) accepted the contention

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowed the deduction by contending that the loan was not part of profit and loss account and therefore the amount not recoverable is a capital loss. The AO further held that the Appellant is not engaged in the business of money lending, therefore conditions prescribed u/s 36(2)(i) are not satisfied.  The CIT(A) accepted the contention

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowed the deduction by contending that the loan was not part of profit and loss account and therefore the amount not recoverable is a capital loss. The AO further held that the Appellant is not engaged in the business of money lending, therefore conditions prescribed u/s 36(2)(i) are not satisfied.  The CIT(A) accepted the contention

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowed the deduction by contending that the loan was not part of profit and loss account and therefore the amount not recoverable is a capital loss. The AO further held that the Appellant is not engaged in the business of money lending, therefore conditions prescribed u/s 36(2)(i) are not satisfied.  The CIT(A) accepted the contention

ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowed the deduction by contending that the loan was not part of profit and loss account and therefore the amount not recoverable is a capital loss. The AO further held that the Appellant is not engaged in the business of money lending, therefore conditions prescribed u/s 36(2)(i) are not satisfied.  The CIT(A) accepted the contention

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowed the deduction by contending that the loan was not part of profit and loss account and therefore the amount not recoverable is a capital loss. The AO further held that the Appellant is not engaged in the business of money lending, therefore conditions prescribed u/s 36(2)(i) are not satisfied.  The CIT(A) accepted the contention

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowed the deduction by contending that the loan was not part of profit and loss account and therefore the amount not recoverable is a capital loss. The AO further held that the Appellant is not engaged in the business of money lending, therefore conditions prescribed u/s 36(2)(i) are not satisfied.  The CIT(A) accepted the contention

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

2 - Charging of Notional interest on advances given to related\nparties / disallowance under section 36(1)(iii)\n30.\nFor A.Y. 2013–14, the Assessing Officer noted from the books of\naccount and details furnished that the assessee had advanced sums without\ncharging interest to the following parties: (i) Godiji Realty Pvt. Ltd. – Rs.\n2,45,00,000/-, (ii) Venugopal Infrastructure

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowed the deduction by contending that the loan was\nnot part of profit and loss account and therefore the amount not\nrecoverable is a capital loss. The AO further held that the Appellant\nis not engaged in the business of money lending, therefore\nconditions prescribed u/s 36(2)(i) are not satisfied.\n\n• The CIT(A) accepted the contention

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

2: Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition made under Section 14A of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,89,45,957/- 28. Before us, at the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that since for the impugned year under consideration since no exempt income was earned by the assessee, there is no question of making any disallowance under

THE ASST. CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

2: Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition made under Section 14A of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,89,45,957/- 28. Before us, at the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that since for the impugned year under consideration since no exempt income was earned by the assessee, there is no question of making any disallowance under

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

2 - Charging of Notional interest on advances given to related\nparties / disallowance under section 36(1)(iii)\n30.\nFor A.Y. 2013–14, the Assessing Officer noted from the books of\naccount and details furnished that the assessee had advanced sums without\ncharging interest to the following parties: (i) Godiji Realty Pvt. Ltd. – Rs.\n2,45,00,000/-, (ii) Venugopal Infrastructure