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 ought to have directed to grant standard deduction u/s 24 of the Act. ITA Nos.2004/Ahd/2014, 1873/Ahd/2014, 2994/Ahd/2016 & 2954/Ahd/2016 & C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017 National Dairy Development Board vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2011-12 6. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the ground of appeal that the interest earned on North Kerala Project Development Fund

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 ought to have directed to grant standard deduction u/s 24 of the Act. ITA Nos.2004/Ahd/2014, 1873/Ahd/2014, 2994/Ahd/2016 & 2954/Ahd/2016 & C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017 National Dairy Development Board vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2011-12 6. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the ground of appeal that the interest earned on North Kerala Project Development Fund

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 ought to have directed to grant standard deduction u/s 24 of the Act. ITA Nos.2004/Ahd/2014, 1873/Ahd/2014, 2994/Ahd/2016 & 2954/Ahd/2016 & C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017 National Dairy Development Board vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2011-12 6. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the ground of appeal that the interest earned on North Kerala Project Development Fund

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 ought to have directed to grant standard deduction u/s 24 of the Act. ITA Nos.2004/Ahd/2014, 1873/Ahd/2014, 2994/Ahd/2016 & 2954/Ahd/2016 & C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017 National Dairy Development Board vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2011-12 6. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the ground of appeal that the interest earned on North Kerala Project Development Fund

SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

71,420/-. The return was taken up for scrutiny assessment and determining the total income as Rs.54,88,603/-. The Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.23,17,183/- as Long Term Capital Gain. The assessee sold a residential house on I.T.A No. 324/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 3 Shri Jignesh Jaysukhlal Ghiya. vs. DCIT 09.01.2013 for Rs.45

NAM GROUP ASLALI,AHMEDABAD vs. AO,CPC, BANGALORE- PRESENT ITO. WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1610/Ahd/2024 & 1611/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2022-23 & 2023-24 Respectively Nam Group Aslali The Ao, Cpc बनाम/ 172/1, Premchand House Bangalore - V/S. Old High Court Way Present Ito Ashram Road Ward-3(1)(1) Ahmedabad Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aaaan 0551 C (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both The Appeals, Filed By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2022-23 & 2023-24 & Arise From The Orders Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit-10 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] In Upholding The Levy Of Surcharge At The Maximum Marginal Rate Under Section 167B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. The Levy Of Surcharge Was Determined Pursuant To Intimations Issued By The Cpc, Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Since The Facts & Grounds Of Appeal For Both Years Are Identical

71,790/- (For A.Y. 2023-24 Rs. 5,85,943/-) 8. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter and/or to modify any ground of appeal. 5. During the course of hearing before us, the Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the income pertains to rental income from house property, and the co-ownership agreement specifies the specific

NAM GROUP ASLALI,AHMEDABAD vs. AO, CPC, BANGALORE-PRESENT -THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1610/Ahd/2024 & 1611/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2022-23 & 2023-24 Respectively Nam Group Aslali The Ao, Cpc बनाम/ 172/1, Premchand House Bangalore - V/S. Old High Court Way Present Ito Ashram Road Ward-3(1)(1) Ahmedabad Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aaaan 0551 C (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both The Appeals, Filed By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2022-23 & 2023-24 & Arise From The Orders Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit-10 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] In Upholding The Levy Of Surcharge At The Maximum Marginal Rate Under Section 167B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. The Levy Of Surcharge Was Determined Pursuant To Intimations Issued By The Cpc, Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Since The Facts & Grounds Of Appeal For Both Years Are Identical

71,790/- (For A.Y. 2023-24 Rs. 5,85,943/-) 8. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter and/or to modify any ground of appeal. 5. During the course of hearing before us, the Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the income pertains to rental income from house property, and the co-ownership agreement specifies the specific

VIRAL RAJENDRA PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD-1., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2018-19

71,427 TOTAL EXEMPTION CLAIMED DURING THE YEAR U/S.54EC AND 54F 3.2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the Ld. Pr.CIT noted that the exemption claimed u/s.54F of the Act by the assessee on account of purchase of land was wrongly allowed to the assessee since the land had not been found to have been purchased within

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

71,57,630/-. So the average rate of interest of taking loan comes to be 8.33% Further, it is seen that the overall appellant has earned interest income of Rs.32,27,673/- despite having paid interest to certain parties as higher rates. However, it is also a fact that the appellant paid interest @ 12% to several persons that were related

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

71,57,630/-. So the average rate of interest of taking loan comes to be 8.33% Further, it is seen that the overall appellant has earned interest income of Rs.32,27,673/- despite having paid interest to certain parties as higher rates. However, it is also a fact that the appellant paid interest @ 12% to several persons that were related

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

71,57,630/-. So the average rate of interest of taking loan comes to be 8.33% Further, it is seen that the overall appellant has earned interest income of Rs.32,27,673/- despite having paid interest to certain parties as higher rates. However, it is also a fact that the appellant paid interest @ 12% to several persons that were related

BHARGAVKUMAR PARSOTTAMBHAI PATEL HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2023-24 Arun Gopilal Samnani The I.T.O., Ward-5(3)(1) 7, Bank Of Baroda Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. P.T. College Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aywps 2887 D Assessment Year :2023-24 Bhargavkumarparsottambh The I.T.O., Ward-1(2)(1) Ai Patel-Huf Vs Ahmedabad. B/301, 3Rd Floor Shree Saran-2 Opp: Anand Niketan School Thaltej, Ahmedabad 380089. Pan : Aalhb 2685 R

71 days is condoned .Order was pronounced in the Open Court. 7.1 Thereafter, both the appeals were proceeded to be adjudicated. 8. The ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the short issue in the present appeal related to the assessee being denied the benefit of paying taxes under the new regime as provided under section 115BCA

ARUN GOPILAL SAMNANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2023-24 Arun Gopilal Samnani The I.T.O., Ward-5(3)(1) 7, Bank Of Baroda Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. P.T. College Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aywps 2887 D Assessment Year :2023-24 Bhargavkumarparsottambh The I.T.O., Ward-1(2)(1) Ai Patel-Huf Vs Ahmedabad. B/301, 3Rd Floor Shree Saran-2 Opp: Anand Niketan School Thaltej, Ahmedabad 380089. Pan : Aalhb 2685 R

71 days is condoned .Order was pronounced in the Open Court. 7.1 Thereafter, both the appeals were proceeded to be adjudicated. 8. The ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the short issue in the present appeal related to the assessee being denied the benefit of paying taxes under the new regime as provided under section 115BCA

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

property in chattel and not a contract of service. The decisions of CIT v ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.), KMC Construction Ltd 51 SOT 214 (Hyd), Koya & Co. Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 203/21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.) (URO) and Radhe Developers v. Union of India

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

property in chattel and not a contract of service. The decisions of CIT v ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.), KMC Construction Ltd 51 SOT 214 (Hyd), Koya & Co. Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 203/21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.) (URO) and Radhe Developers v. Union of India

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

property in chattel and not a contract of service. The decisions of CIT v ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.), KMC Construction Ltd 51 SOT 214 (Hyd), Koya & Co. Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 203/21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.) (URO) and Radhe Developers v. Union of India

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

property in chattel and not a contract of service. The decisions of CIT v ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.), KMC Construction Ltd 51 SOT 214 (Hyd), Koya & Co. Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 203/21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.) (URO) and Radhe Developers v. Union of India

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGG. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

property in chattel and not a contract of service. The decisions of CIT v ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.), KMC Construction Ltd 51 SOT 214 (Hyd), Koya & Co. Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 203/21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.) (URO) and Radhe Developers v. Union of India

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)

71,40,000/- on account of Capital Grants and Subsidies and Consumers’ Contribution of Rs.88,88,08,000/= I.T.A Nos. 330 & 331/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 5 Dakshin Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT on the ground that the assessee should transfer 15% of the total Grants/subsidies/consumer contribution received during the year as against