GUJARAT RAJPUT HITWARDHAK MANDAL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-EXEMPTION, VADODARA

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

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17. I.T.A No. 1469/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 Gujarat Rajput Hitwardhak Mandal vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust

HITACHI HI-REL POWER ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act; hence, this ground of the assessee is also rejected. In the result, ground Nos. 2 & 3 in both the assessment years are rejected. 4. In ground no.1, the grievance of the assessee is that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.48,79,636/- and Rs.69.12 lakhs

HITACHI HI-REL POWER ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act; hence, this ground of the assessee is also rejected. In the result, ground Nos. 2 & 3 in both the assessment years are rejected. 4. In ground no.1, the grievance of the assessee is that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.48,79,636/- and Rs.69.12 lakhs

PATEL AMBALAL LAXMANDAS NI CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

12A) of the Income-tax Act which is reproduced below also for the sake of clarity: (12 A) "books or books of account" includes ledgers, day-books, cash books, account-books and other books, whether kept in the written form or as print-outs of data stored in a floppy, disc, tape or any other form of electro-magnetic data

PATEL AMBALAL LAXMANDAS NI CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

12A) of the Income-tax Act which is reproduced below also for the sake of clarity: (12 A) "books or books of account" includes ledgers, day-books, cash books, account-books and other books, whether kept in the written form or as print-outs of data stored in a floppy, disc, tape or any other form of electro-magnetic data

PATEL AMBALAL LAXMANDAS NI CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

12A) of the Income-tax Act which is reproduced below also for the sake of clarity: (12 A) "books or books of account" includes ledgers, day-books, cash books, account-books and other books, whether kept in the written form or as print-outs of data stored in a floppy, disc, tape or any other form of electro-magnetic data

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2010-11. iii) The second main ground in respective appeals is with regard to disallowance of interest income and other income as not eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. iv) Challenge is also made in some of the years that loss of eligible sites

M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2010-11. iii) The second main ground in respective appeals is with regard to disallowance of interest income and other income as not eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. iv) Challenge is also made in some of the years that loss of eligible sites

M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2010-11. iii) The second main ground in respective appeals is with regard to disallowance of interest income and other income as not eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. iv) Challenge is also made in some of the years that loss of eligible sites

M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2010-11. iii) The second main ground in respective appeals is with regard to disallowance of interest income and other income as not eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. iv) Challenge is also made in some of the years that loss of eligible sites

M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2010-11. iii) The second main ground in respective appeals is with regard to disallowance of interest income and other income as not eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. iv) Challenge is also made in some of the years that loss of eligible sites

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. RAJKAMAL BUILDER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2010-11. iii) The second main ground in respective appeals is with regard to disallowance of interest income and other income as not eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. iv) Challenge is also made in some of the years that loss of eligible sites

RAJKAMAL BUILDER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT., RANGE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2010-11. iii) The second main ground in respective appeals is with regard to disallowance of interest income and other income as not eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. iv) Challenge is also made in some of the years that loss of eligible sites

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. RAJKAMAL BUILDER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2010-11. iii) The second main ground in respective appeals is with regard to disallowance of interest income and other income as not eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. iv) Challenge is also made in some of the years that loss of eligible sites

M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2010-11. iii) The second main ground in respective appeals is with regard to disallowance of interest income and other income as not eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. iv) Challenge is also made in some of the years that loss of eligible sites

M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2010-11. iii) The second main ground in respective appeals is with regard to disallowance of interest income and other income as not eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. iv) Challenge is also made in some of the years that loss of eligible sites

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2010-11. iii) The second main ground in respective appeals is with regard to disallowance of interest income and other income as not eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. iv) Challenge is also made in some of the years that loss of eligible sites

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2010-11. iii) The second main ground in respective appeals is with regard to disallowance of interest income and other income as not eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. iv) Challenge is also made in some of the years that loss of eligible sites