MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,VADODARA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 115JB of the Act by the amount of addition made on account of grants or subsidies. Since, the issue arises from the treatment of grants or subsidies which we have set aside to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication, we hereby set aside the issue of addition of book profit to the file

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,VADODARA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 115JB of the Act by the amount of addition made on account of grants or subsidies. Since, the issue arises from the treatment of grants or subsidies which we have set aside to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication, we hereby set aside the issue of addition of book profit to the file

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,VADODARA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 115JB of the Act by the amount of addition made on account of grants or subsidies. Since, the issue arises from the treatment of grants or subsidies which we have set aside to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication, we hereby set aside the issue of addition of book profit to the file

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 115JB of the Act by the amount of addition made on account of grants or subsidies. Since, the issue arises from the treatment of grants or subsidies which we have set aside to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication, we hereby set aside the issue of addition of book profit to the file

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 115JB of the Act by the amount of addition made on account of grants or subsidies. Since, the issue arises from the treatment of grants or subsidies which we have set aside to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication, we hereby set aside the issue of addition of book profit to the file

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 6.3. Per contra Ld CIT DR appearing for the Revenue submitted as the earlier ground was set aside to the file of AO for verification. I.T.A Nos. 330 & 331/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 13 Dakshin Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT This ground may also be set aside

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 6.3. Per contra Ld CIT DR appearing for the Revenue submitted as the earlier ground was set aside to the file of AO for verification. I.T.A Nos. 330 & 331/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 13 Dakshin Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT This ground may also be set aside

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 6.3. Per contra Ld CIT DR appearing for the Revenue submitted as the earlier ground was set aside to the file of AO for verification. I.T.A Nos. 330 & 331/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 13 Dakshin Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT This ground may also be set aside

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 6.3. Per contra Ld CIT DR appearing for the Revenue submitted as the earlier ground was set aside to the file of AO for verification. I.T.A Nos. 330 & 331/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 13 Dakshin Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT This ground may also be set aside

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, RACE COURSE CIRLCE, VADODARA vs. MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, RACE COURSE CIRLCE, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

house property and included in the assessee's business income, was correct\n24. 1. Further the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd., 343 ITR 245 wherein the “loss on account of non-recovery of loan given to employees was treated as loss incidental to business activity, then the interest on such loan falls

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

house property and included in the assessee’s total income, was correct.” 9.1. Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd., 343 ITR 245 wherein the “loss on account of non-recovery of loan given to employees was treated as loss incidental to business activity, then the interest on such loan falls within

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

house property and included in the assessee’s total income, was correct.” 9.1. Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd., 343 ITR 245 wherein the “loss on account of non-recovery of loan given to employees was treated as loss incidental to business activity, then the interest on such loan falls within

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

house property and included in the assessee’s total income, was correct.” 9.1. Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd., 343 ITR 245 wherein the “loss on account of non-recovery of loan given to employees was treated as loss incidental to business activity, then the interest on such loan falls within

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

house property and included in the assessee’s total income, was correct.” 9.1. Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd., 343 ITR 245 wherein the “loss on account of non-recovery of loan given to employees was treated as loss incidental to business activity, then the interest on such loan falls within

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

house property and included in the assessee’s total income, was correct.” 9.1. Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd., 343 ITR 245 wherein the “loss on account of non-recovery of loan given to employees was treated as loss incidental to business activity, then the interest on such loan falls within

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

house property and included in the assessee’s total income, was correct.” 9.1. Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd., 343 ITR 245 wherein the “loss on account of non-recovery of loan given to employees was treated as loss incidental to business activity, then the interest on such loan falls within

ANILKUMAR DWARKAPRASAD MODANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)(PREVIOUSLY DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1572/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani The Dy.Cit बनाम/ A-17, Videocon Housing Colony Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Chavaj, Bharuch 392 002 Vadodara (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acnpm 0273 C अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26/12/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, In Which The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao)”] Under Section 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Was Confirmed Vide Assessment Order Dated 28/03/2016. Facts Of The Case: 2. The Assessee, An Individual Earning Income From Salaries, Trading In Shares & Securities, Capital Gains & Other Sources, Filed His Return Of Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani Vs. The Dcit Asst. Year : 2013-14

Housing Colony Circle-2(1)(1) v/s. Chavaj, Bharuch 392 002 Vadodara (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN:ACNPM 0273 C अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hemant Suthar, AR Revenue by : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR

VAISHALI BABUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 380/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Vaishali Babubhai Patel, The Principal Commissioner B-201, Vs. Of Income Tax-3, Gala Gardenia Apartments, Ahmedabad. Nr. Safal Parisar, South Bopal, Ahmedabad-380058. Pan: Abdpp0233G

housing society for a total consideration of Rs.45,80,000. It is further submitted that before entering into the final sale agreement, the assessee with 9 others spent Rs.28,00,000/- towards improvement cost, and expenses have been incurred through regular banking channels. Accordingly, the total cost of the impugned land was arrived at Rs.73,80,000/-. The amount invested