SHRI ALTAFHUSEN M. SIDDIKI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.577/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.969/Ahd/2015 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Altafhusen M. Siddiki, Prop Dcit, Circle-9 Of Sunmoon Roadways 6/D/1, Vs Ahmedabad Pursottam Estate, Nr. Cozy Hotel, Ranipur Patia, Sarkhej Road, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405 Pan No.Arsps3765P

iv. Addition u/s 68 for unexplained cash credit of Rs.78,13,987/- v. Disallowance of vehicle expenses at Rs.27,050/- & telephone/mobile expenses at Rs.19,515/- after making above addition income of Rs.3,85,72,470/- 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 6. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising

DUSHYANTSINH YADVENDRASINH CHUDASAMA,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), 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:

IV. Unexplained Unsecured Loans u/s.68 of Rs. 12,83,000/- 1. (a) Your Appellant submits that the CIT(A) has erred both in Law and in Fact in upholding the addition of Rs.12,83,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.68 , of the Act. which does not apply as per provisions of Law and since the said amount was credited

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:

IV. Unexplained Unsecured Loans u/s.68 of Rs. 12,83,000/- 1. (a) Your Appellant submits that the CIT(A) has erred both in Law and in Fact in upholding the addition of Rs.12,83,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.68 , of the Act. which does not apply as per provisions of Law and since the said amount was credited

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

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 that interest income and dividend income earned by the assessee

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

iv. One more thing which is clearly discernible from the above discussions is that the tests recognized by these guidelines are interwoven twin tests of benefit and arm's length. Benefit test implies the recipient group member should get "economic or commercial value to enhance its commercial position". The benefit test is interlinked with the arm's length test

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

iv. One more thing which is clearly discernible from the above discussions is that the tests recognized by these guidelines are interwoven twin tests of benefit and arm's length. Benefit test implies the recipient group member should get "economic or commercial value to enhance its commercial position". The benefit test is interlinked with the arm's length test

THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

iv. One more thing which is clearly discernible from the above discussions is that the tests recognized by these guidelines are interwoven twin tests of benefit and arm's length. Benefit test implies the recipient group member should get "economic or commercial value to enhance its commercial position". The benefit test is interlinked with the arm's length test

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

iv. One more thing which is clearly discernible from the above discussions is that the tests recognized by these guidelines are interwoven twin tests of benefit and arm's length. Benefit test implies the recipient group member should get "economic or commercial value to enhance its commercial position". The benefit test is interlinked with the arm's length test

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

iv. One more thing which is clearly discernible from the above discussions is that the tests recognized by these guidelines are interwoven twin tests of benefit and arm's length. Benefit test implies the recipient group member should get "economic or commercial value to enhance its commercial position". The benefit test is interlinked with the arm's length test

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

iv. One more thing which is clearly discernible from the above discussions is that the tests recognized by these guidelines are interwoven twin tests of benefit and arm's length. Benefit test implies the recipient group member should get "economic or commercial value to enhance its commercial position". The benefit test is interlinked with the arm's length test

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ( SINCE MERGED WITH ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

iv. The assessee also referred to the schedule XIV of the companies Act 1956 where the rate of depreciation was prescribed with respect to certain assets which were classified as “4. Data processing machines including computers (NESD). v. The assessee also claimed that it was allowed depreciation on data processing machinery at the rate of 60% to the same

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

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

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

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