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

v. ITO (1991) 191 ITR 667 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court after referring to Rule 6DD of the Rules held as follows: 7. In our opinion, there is little merit in this contention. Section 40A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of Rule 6DD. The Section must be read along with the Rule. If read

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

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, 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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 30/07/2022 & 20/07/2022 for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. Since the assessee is same, for the sake of convenience

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:

V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 30/07/2022 & 20/07/2022 for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. Since the assessee is same, for the sake of convenience

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

3, the assessee has raised the following grievances: 3. (A) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in upholding partial disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts

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

3, the assessee has raised the following grievances: 3. (A) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in upholding partial disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts

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

3, the assessee has raised the following grievances: 3. (A) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in upholding partial disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts