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

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

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

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

253 ITR 749) for the proposition that for the purpose\nof section 32, registration in the assessee's own name is not mandatory if\nbeneficial ownership and business use are established.\n80. On this issue, the learned AR placed reliance on the findings of the\nlearned CIT(A), whereas the learned DR supported the order of the\nAssessing Officer

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

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

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 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

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

2 per cent. We observe that in the instant facts, the assessee has computed the ALP at LIBOR plus 2.5%. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has upheld the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer on the Ground that the assessee has not given the comparable basis for arriving at the aforesaid rate. However, in our view, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

253 Less: Already disallowed in the return Rs. 1,00,000) 3. Disallowance U/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2) of Rs. 1,10,47,762/- in addition to disallowance u/s 14A made in the assessment order dated 24-09-21 while Calculating Book Profit U/s. 115JB of the Act – MAT (Disallowance as computed in Revision Order dated

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

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.572/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Gujarat State Electricity The Pr.Cit-1 Corporation Ltd. बनाम/ Vadodara – 390 015 Sardar Patel Vidhyut Bhavan V/S. Race Course Circle Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 6864 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Jimi Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

disallowance under section 14A of the Act, capital grants, prior period items, liquidated damages, and others. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT-1 Asst. Year : 2015-16 3 2.4. Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–1, Vadodara, issued a notice under section 263 of the Act on 13.09.2019, proposing to revise the assessment on the ground that

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. SHRI KETAN REALITIES PVT. LTD, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowance to the extent to accumulated profit as on 31.04.2010 and demanded tax thereon. Ketan Realities Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year 2011-2012 3 4. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as follows: “…5.5 Apart from making out of the case that

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPN. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1596/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

253/- 23/03/2006 Total 37,31,520/- It is submitted by the appellant that the same was wrongly disallowed on account of delay in payment of PF contribution. The date viz., 22/07/2005 mentioned in the Annexure to the Tax Audit Report pertains to the payment of ‘Pension Contribution’ and not the ‘PF Contribution’. For the other payments, the appellant has given