VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3,85,16,135/ (b) VUDA Development Charges Rs. 68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3,85,16,135/ (b) VUDA Development Charges Rs. 68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3,85,16,135/ (b) VUDA Development Charges Rs. 68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3,85,16,135/ (b) VUDA Development Charges Rs. 68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3,85,16,135/ (b) VUDA Development Charges Rs. 68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification

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

2,14,92,990/-, (ii) revenue tax of Rs.16,960/-, and (iii) Rs.15,00,000/- paid to Shri Mahesh Karsanbhai to avoid litigation in respect of acquisition of certain land. It was explained that the land in question was acquired in the preceding year and the payment to Shri Mahesh Karsanbhai was in the nature of compensation to prevent

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

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

253 ITR 749 wherein it is held as under: "Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with sections 198 and 309 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Business expenditure - Allowability of - Assessment year 1979-80 - Whether when vehicles belonging to an assessee-company are used by its directors, for personal or other purposes, it would be wrong

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

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) without appreciating the fact that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions precedent and the assessee was only a contractor not a developer. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) without appreciating the fact that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions precedent and the assessee was only a contractor not a developer. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that

KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.(OSD),CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) without appreciating the fact that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions precedent and the assessee was only a contractor not a developer. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that

THE GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 442/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 The Government Servants Co-Op. Credit I.T.O., Society Ltd., Vs. Ward-3(1)(2), Hindi Bhavan, Vadodara. Sanstha Vasahat Raopura, Vadodara-390001. Pan: Aabat5146J

253 ITR 798held as under : "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GANESH HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) “Ganesh Corporate House” Navjivan Trust Bldg. Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaacg 5590 Q With Co No.216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Navjivan Trust Bldg. “Ganesh Corporate House” Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri C. Danday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2018 आदेश/O R D E R

disallowance made under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sub-section 4 of Section 253 authorizes

GANESH HOUSING CORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4, NOW, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) “Ganesh Corporate House” Navjivan Trust Bldg. Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaacg 5590 Q With Co No.216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Navjivan Trust Bldg. “Ganesh Corporate House” Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri C. Danday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2018 आदेश/O R D E R

disallowance made under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sub-section 4 of Section 253 authorizes

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 14A could not be made applicable to investments which are capable ofgenerating taxable income; and 6 The investment made by the Appellant in the partnership firm Is strategic in nature and not forthe purpose of earning exempt income. 13.2 Without Prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) grossly erred in disallowing the selling and distribution expenses u/s. 14A without

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 14A could not be made applicable to investments which are capable ofgenerating taxable income; and 6 The investment made by the Appellant in the partnership firm Is strategic in nature and not forthe purpose of earning exempt income. 13.2 Without Prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) grossly erred in disallowing the selling and distribution expenses u/s. 14A without

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 14A could not be made applicable to investments which are capable ofgenerating taxable income; and 6 The investment made by the Appellant in the partnership firm Is strategic in nature and not forthe purpose of earning exempt income. 13.2 Without Prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) grossly erred in disallowing the selling and distribution expenses u/s. 14A without

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 14A could not be made applicable to investments which are capable ofgenerating taxable income; and 6 The investment made by the Appellant in the partnership firm Is strategic in nature and not forthe purpose of earning exempt income. 13.2 Without Prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) grossly erred in disallowing the selling and distribution expenses u/s. 14A without