SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House, 1st Floor, G-Block, International Taxation-1, Plot No. C-60, Bandra Kurla Ahmedabad-380014 Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 [PAN No.AAHCS9360D] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, Shri Parin Shah, Shri Ankit Gandhi & Ms. Dhruvi Salot, A.Rs. Respondent by: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. Date of Hearing 23.02.2024 & 06.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INT.TAXA.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House, 1st Floor, G-Block, International Taxation-1, Plot No. C-60, Bandra Kurla Ahmedabad-380014 Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 [PAN No.AAHCS9360D] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, Shri Parin Shah, Shri Ankit Gandhi & Ms. Dhruvi Salot, A.Rs. Respondent by: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. Date of Hearing 23.02.2024 & 06.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House, 1st Floor, G-Block, International Taxation-1, Plot No. C-60, Bandra Kurla Ahmedabad-380014 Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 [PAN No.AAHCS9360D] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, Shri Parin Shah, Shri Ankit Gandhi & Ms. Dhruvi Salot, A.Rs. Respondent by: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. Date of Hearing 23.02.2024 & 06.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House, 1st Floor, G-Block, International Taxation-1, Plot No. C-60, Bandra Kurla Ahmedabad-380014 Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 [PAN No.AAHCS9360D] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, Shri Parin Shah, Shri Ankit Gandhi & Ms. Dhruvi Salot, A.Rs. Respondent by: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. Date of Hearing 23.02.2024 & 06.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House, 1st Floor, G-Block, International Taxation-1, Plot No. C-60, Bandra Kurla Ahmedabad-380014 Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 [PAN No.AAHCS9360D] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, Shri Parin Shah, Shri Ankit Gandhi & Ms. Dhruvi Salot, A.Rs. Respondent by: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. Date of Hearing 23.02.2024 & 06.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House, 1st Floor, G-Block, International Taxation-1, Plot No. C-60, Bandra Kurla Ahmedabad-380014 Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 [PAN No.AAHCS9360D] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, Shri Parin Shah, Shri Ankit Gandhi & Ms. Dhruvi Salot, A.Rs. Respondent by: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. Date of Hearing 23.02.2024 & 06.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House, 1st Floor, G-Block, International Taxation-1, Plot No. C-60, Bandra Kurla Ahmedabad-380014 Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 [PAN No.AAHCS9360D] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, Shri Parin Shah, Shri Ankit Gandhi & Ms. Dhruvi Salot, A.Rs. Respondent by: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. Date of Hearing 23.02.2024 & 06.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House, 1st Floor, G-Block, International Taxation-1, Plot No. C-60, Bandra Kurla Ahmedabad-380014 Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 [PAN No.AAHCS9360D] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, Shri Parin Shah, Shri Ankit Gandhi & Ms. Dhruvi Salot, A.Rs. Respondent by: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. Date of Hearing 23.02.2024 & 06.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House, 1st Floor, G-Block, International Taxation-1, Plot No. C-60, Bandra Kurla Ahmedabad-380014 Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 [PAN No.AAHCS9360D] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, Shri Parin Shah, Shri Ankit Gandhi & Ms. Dhruvi Salot, A.Rs. Respondent by: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. Date of Hearing 23.02.2024 & 06.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

house property, business, and other sources. Following a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act concerning the Vaghela Group on August 30, 2013, a notice under section 153A was issued for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny for the assessment year 2014-15 and on December

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

house property, business, and other sources. Following a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act concerning the Vaghela Group on August 30, 2013, a notice under section 153A was issued for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny for the assessment year 2014-15 and on December

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)

properties, the boards may be permitted only to lease out their assets and receive rents. 177. The answers to these, in the opinion of this court, are that the definition ipso facto does not spell out whether certain kinds of income can be excluded. However, the reference to specific provisions enabling or mandating collection of certain rates, tariffs or costs

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)

properties, the boards may be permitted only to lease out their assets and receive rents. 177. The answers to these, in the opinion of this court, are that the definition ipso facto does not spell out whether certain kinds of income can be excluded. However, the reference to specific provisions enabling or mandating collection of certain rates, tariffs or costs

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)

properties, the boards may be permitted only to lease out their assets and receive rents. 177. The answers to these, in the opinion of this court, are that the definition ipso facto does not spell out whether certain kinds of income can be excluded. However, the reference to specific provisions enabling or mandating collection of certain rates, tariffs or costs

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)

properties, the boards may be permitted only to lease out their assets and receive rents. 177. The answers to these, in the opinion of this court, are that the definition ipso facto does not spell out whether certain kinds of income can be excluded. However, the reference to specific provisions enabling or mandating collection of certain rates, tariffs or costs

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)

properties, the boards may be permitted only to lease out their assets and receive rents. 177. The answers to these, in the opinion of this court, are that the definition ipso facto does not spell out whether certain kinds of income can be excluded. However, the reference to specific provisions enabling or mandating collection of certain rates, tariffs or costs

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)

properties, the boards may be permitted only to lease out their assets and receive rents. 177. The answers to these, in the opinion of this court, are that the definition ipso facto does not spell out whether certain kinds of income can be excluded. However, the reference to specific provisions enabling or mandating collection of certain rates, tariffs or costs

ANKIT PRANLAL PATEL,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. 7. As per the Explanation 2, the order passed by the A.O. shall be deemed to be erroneous