THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER & CHEMICAL LTD, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

80G of the Act. It is submitted that it be so held now.” ITA No. 538/Ahd/2020 – Department’s appeal 3. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. (1) (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,78,76,443/- under section

GUJARAT STATE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-1(1)1(), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

80G of the Act. It is submitted that it be so held now.” ITA No. 538/Ahd/2020 – Department’s appeal 3. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. (1) (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,78,76,443/- under section