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(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

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(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

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

property was acquired within the stipulated date in terms of section 54F of the Act. Therefore, in the absence of inquiries or verification which should have been made, the opinion formed by the AO regarding allowbility of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act is premature as the same is based on incomplete evidences and inference so drawn is not proper

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

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

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

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

M/S. OCEANIC BUILDCON PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

house property - Held, yes [Paras 5 and 11] [In favour of assessee]” 16. With respect to the appeal for the A.Y. 2010-1L it was stated that the business of the assessee is required to be considered as commenced from the F.Y. 2005- 06 itself when the land required for construction of the Mall was purchased

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\nAnd 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).\n\n1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) 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

VISHWA KALYAN SOCIETY,SABARKANTHA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 449/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Vishwa Kalyan Society, D.C.I.T, Vijay Samudranagar, Vs. Cpc, Atma Vallabh Hospital Parisar, Bangalore. Idar Himatnagar Highway, Sabarkantha-383430. Pan: Aaatv1108N

house property is a statutory deduction and has not been allowed. The Hon'ble ITAT Chennai Bench-A, in the case of Anjuman-E-Himayath-E-Islam ITA No. 2271 (MDS) of 2014 for A.Y.2009-10 dated June 2, 2015 has held that in the case of trust Section 22 to 27 of the Act is not applicable. Therefore

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