DUSHYANTSINH YADVENDRASINH CHUDASAMA,VADODARA vs. DY.COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.353/Ahd/2022 & 354/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh The Dy.Commissioner Of बनाम/ Chudasama Income Tax V/S. C/O.Anil R. Shah (Ca), Circle -1 (2) Shreeji House, 4Th Floor Vadodara – 390 007 B/H. M.J. Library Ahmedabad - 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acrpc 1888 M (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

194A of the Act, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was held to be mandatory. The argument that similar interest payments had been allowed in earlier years was also not accepted, as each assessment year is to be considered independently. In view of the above, the interest expenses were disallowed, and an addition of Rs.8

THE BAVLA GROUP SEVA SAHAKAR MANDALI LTD,BAVLA, AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(5), AHMEDABAD, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3. The brief and limited issue for consideration is the disallowance of claim of deduction for a sum of Rs. 4,01,607/- on interest income earned by the assessee on funds parked with and dividend income earned from the Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) held

NAVJIVAN (KALYAN) CO.OP. HOS. SCO. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

disallowance of deduction amounting to Rs.2,10,583/- towards the interest received from Co-operative Bank. The short issue before us for adjudication is whether the co-operative bank was to be treated as co-operative societies for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that this issue stands settled by the order

DHANLAXMI CREDIT CO. OP. SOCIETY LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, PATAN

In the result, Ground Number 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest received from cooperative banks: 5. We are of the considered view that this controversy has now been settled by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ashwinkumar Arban Co Operative Society Ltd. [2024] 168 taxmann.com 314 (Gujarat

SHREE SARVODAYA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,VADODARA vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY. CIT, CICLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowing the interest income earned by the assessee by way of FD investment in other Co-op. Society, i.e. Gujarat State Co-op. Bank Ltd. (GSCB) and the rental income from HUDCO and SHARK Systems, which were claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

SHREE SARVODAYA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,VADODARA vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowing the interest income earned by the assessee by way of FD investment in other Co-op. Society, i.e. Gujarat State Co-op. Bank Ltd. (GSCB) and the rental income from HUDCO and SHARK Systems, which were claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. THE GUJARAT STATE CO. OP. HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

disallowing the interest income earned by the assessee by way of FD investment in other Co-op. Society, i.e. Gujarat State Co-op. Bank Ltd. (GSCB) and the rental income from HUDCO and SHARK Systems, which were claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. THE GUJARAT STATE CO. OP. HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

disallowing the interest income earned by the assessee by way of FD investment in other Co-op. Society, i.e. Gujarat State Co-op. Bank Ltd. (GSCB) and the rental income from HUDCO and SHARK Systems, which were claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. THE GUJARAT STATE CO. OP. HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

disallowing the interest income earned by the assessee by way of FD investment in other Co-op. Society, i.e. Gujarat State Co-op. Bank Ltd. (GSCB) and the rental income from HUDCO and SHARK Systems, which were claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

THE ORCHID HEIGHTS CO.OP HOUSING SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms Suchitra Kamblethe Orchid Heights Co-Op Income Tax Officer, Vs. Housing Service Society Ward-3(3)(5), Limited, Ahmedabad. Applewood Township, Nr. Shantipura Circle, Ahmedabad-382210.. [Pan :Aagat8437 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri M J Ranpura, Ar Respondent By: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Dated 29.04.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals:

disallowance confirmed is unjustified and uncalled for, which deserves to be deleted, may kindly be deleted. 3. The only issue required to be adjudicated by this Tribunal is that whether the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, for the interest received from the Co-operative Banks. 4. The issue before

SOHAMNAGAR CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY VIBHAG-III,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of the deduction u/s 80P of Rs. 2,80,904/-. 3.1 Without prejudice to above and in the alternative, the ld. AO has failed to appreciate that real income arising from the receipts and expenses of the society was chargeable to tax.” 3. The issue for consideration before us is whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section

RATNESHWARI CO.OP.CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-

disallowing the interest received by the assessee from the Mehsana Dist. Central Co-operative Bank and the Kukarwada Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. of Rs.10,23,047/- claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. On this

MEHSANA TALUKA MADHYAMIK TEACHARS CREDIT AND CONSUMERS SAHAKARI MANDALI,MEHSANA vs. ITO, WARD-2, MEHSANA PRESENTLY WARD-1, MEHSANA, MEHSANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance u/s.80P(2) (d) by relying judgement of Karnataka High Court through the judgement of jurisdictional High court in favour of appellant was submitted during proceeding of CIT(A). 3. Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not considering the ground of appellant for the mistake in order of AO in computing assessed income by making addition on income computed u/s.143

MEHSANA TALUKA MADHYAMIK TEACHARS CREDIT AND CONSUMERS SAHAKARI MANDALI,MEHSANA vs. ITO, WARD-2, MEHSANA PRESENTLY WARD-1, MEHSANA, MEHSANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance u/s.80P(2) (d) by relying judgement of Karnataka High Court through the judgement of jurisdictional High court in favour of appellant was submitted during proceeding of CIT(A). 3. Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not considering the ground of appellant for the mistake in order of AO in computing assessed income by making addition on income computed u/s.143

M/S. DRAIPL-MSKEL(JV),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2007-08 Draipl-Kskel (Jv) Ito, Ward-9(2) 2Nd Floor, “Msk” Vs. Ahmedabad. Passport Office To Panjarapole Rd. Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaaad 3825 B (Applicant) (Responent)

194A. As no tax was deducted, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was made. The assessee’s defence that TDS was not deductible due to composite EMI payments was rejected. The AO noted that despite the legal restrictions being applicable and known to the assessee, it proceeded to claim deduction of Rs.2,42,98,174/- under section 80IA(4), which

NIMBESHWAR GUDADRAM DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY CIRCLE-3(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

3 Nimbeshwar Gudadram Desai vs. DCIT assessment proceedings, on verification of records, the Assessing Officer made four separate additions to the income of the assessee. The first addition relates to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had paid interest of Rs. 41,21,055/- to various Non-Banking Finance Companies

MUKESH CHHOTELAL GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Shri Mukesh Chhotelal Gupta The Dcit, Cir.(1)(1) Gupta Nivas Vs. Ahmedabad. Chandkheda Sabarmati Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Ablpg 9729 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ar : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts of the Case 2.1 The brief factual backdrop, as emanates from the assessment order, is that the case was selected for limited scrutiny for the specific reason “large deduction claimed u/s 57 under the head income from

BACKBONE TARMET NG JV,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Vs. Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, The Income-Tax Officer, A-9, Kumud Apartment, Ward-5(2)(2), Near Stadium Five Roads, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aaaab 3885 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Deciding Appeal Ex- Parte Without Appreciating That Business Of The Appellant Has Been Closed Since Covid-19 & Therefore, In Absence Of Any Office, Notice(S) Claimed To Be Have Been Served Through Email Could Not Be Communicated To The Partners Of The Appellant. Without Prejudice To This It Is Submitted That No Notice(S) Came To Be Served On The Appellant At The Designated Email Stated In Form No. 35 For The Purpose Of Service Of Notice(S). Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv Vs. Ito Ay : 2005-06 2

194A on such interest expenses. The AO accordingly invoked the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed the expenses. 11. In the first appeal, the CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Lankmark Township (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT 279 CTR 384 (Delhi) which hold that

SHREE HARI ENTERPRISE ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nfollowing terms:\n\ni) Issue No

3) and (6) of\nthe annexure to the notice. In response to the same, the assessee firm has\nsubmitted its reply on 06.03.2021 along with the necessary documents\nsupporting the same. (Copy of such notice and response to the same is\nattached herewith as Annexure-3).\n\nThe learned AO during the assessment proceedings has therefore verified\ntotal rent paid