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)

46). 11(7), and the nineteenth proviso in the explanation of section 10(23C), and to add a new section 10(46A) to the Income Tax Act. The new Section 10(46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central

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)

46). 11(7), and the nineteenth proviso in the explanation of section 10(23C), and to add a new section 10(46A) to the Income Tax Act. The new Section 10(46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central

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)

46). 11(7), and the nineteenth proviso in the explanation of section 10(23C), and to add a new section 10(46A) to the Income Tax Act. The new Section 10(46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central

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)

46). 11(7), and the nineteenth proviso in the explanation of section 10(23C), and to add a new section 10(46A) to the Income Tax Act. The new Section 10(46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central

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)

46). 11(7), and the nineteenth proviso in the explanation of section 10(23C), and to add a new section 10(46A) to the Income Tax Act. The new Section 10(46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central

ATUL GOVINDJI SHROFF,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

10 Atul Govindji Shroff vs. DCIT appellant carries out milking activity and sells milk and milk products using the land. 5.12 In this regard, it is seen from the income-tax return for A.Y. 2017-18 filed in the paper book as pages 1 to pages 7 that the appellant has shown income from salary, income from house property, income

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS, BARODA

Properties, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed. 8. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Properties, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed. 8. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

SHRI RAJAT B. MEHTA,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTL. TAXN.), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

46,00,000 and earned long term capital gain of Rs 1,89,77,426. Whatever may have been the compulsions of this sale of property by the assessee, like an overwhelming majority of non-resident Indians, the assessee did not entirely severe his India connection as far holding property in India is concerned. He invested a portion

SHRI VIJAYBHAI HATHISING SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

section 263 of the Act thereon which is not the case here. 5. Thus the ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order dated 22.08.2017 and directed the Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order after allowing adequate opportunities to the assessee, in accordance with law following prescribed procedure and duly examining the issue of allowability of deduction

MRS. SHIKHA SANJAYA SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

46,64,662/- against the Long-Term Capital Gain of Rs. 2,62,06,472/- exempted u/s 10(38) and thus reduced the quantum of carried-forward losses. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal to Ld. CIT(A).The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of assessee by observing as under: “The Assessing

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

house property”. 27. The next issue for consideration is before us whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in allowing the claim of depreciation in respect of other assets leased out by the assessee. Before us, the Ld. D.R. submitted that firstly, the Ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the fact that the assets have

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

house property”. 27. The next issue for consideration is before us whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in allowing the claim of depreciation in respect of other assets leased out by the assessee. Before us, the Ld. D.R. submitted that firstly, the Ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the fact that the assets have

THE ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

house property”. 27. The next issue for consideration is before us whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in allowing the claim of depreciation in respect of other assets leased out by the assessee. Before us, the Ld. D.R. submitted that firstly, the Ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the fact that the assets have

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ACIT.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

house property”. 27. The next issue for consideration is before us whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in allowing the claim of depreciation in respect of other assets leased out by the assessee. Before us, the Ld. D.R. submitted that firstly, the Ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the fact that the assets have

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

46,037/-computed by A.O. in accordance with the provisions of section 144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs. 10,00,000/- ignoring the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

46,037/-computed by A.O. in accordance with the provisions of section 144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs. 10,00,000/- ignoring the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

46,037/-computed by A.O. in accordance with the provisions of section 144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs. 10,00,000/- ignoring the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

46,037/-computed by A.O. in accordance with the provisions of section 144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs. 10,00,000/- ignoring the provisions of sub-section (2) of section