THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned two appeal have been filed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, of even dated 20/01/2021 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and 143(3) of the Income

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

d) of the l.T Act is not allowable if the provisions of the first proviso to Sec.2(15) of the l.T Act become applicable to the facts of the case, as discussed in the order below. It has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs that the assessee is squarely covered under the provisions of Sec. 2(15) r.w.s proviso

ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), VEJALPUR vs. AHMEDABAD DISTRICT CO OP MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

2)(d) of the Act, dividend income and fixed deposit interest are required to be disallowed and, therefore, proceedings under Section 147 of the Act was initiated and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assesses did not file return of income. The assessee was issued show cause

THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. AHMEDABAD DISTRICT CO.OP.MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

2)(d) of the Act, dividend income and fixed deposit interest are required to be disallowed and, therefore, proceedings under Section 147 of the Act was initiated and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assesses did not file return of income. The assessee was issued show cause

GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has received a sum of Rs 1,58,00,000 from the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI, in short) as towards the TV rights. When he probed the matter further, it was explained by the assessee that nomenclature of the receipt apart, what has been received by the assessee

THE DY..DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has received a sum of Rs 1,58,00,000 from the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI, in short) as towards the TV rights. When he probed the matter further, it was explained by the assessee that nomenclature of the receipt apart, what has been received by the assessee

GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has received a sum of Rs 1,58,00,000 from the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI, in short) as towards the TV rights. When he probed the matter further, it was explained by the assessee that nomenclature of the receipt apart, what has been received by the assessee

THE DY..DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has received a sum of Rs 1,58,00,000 from the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI, in short) as towards the TV rights. When he probed the matter further, it was explained by the assessee that nomenclature of the receipt apart, what has been received by the assessee

GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has received a sum of Rs 1,58,00,000 from the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI, in short) as towards the TV rights. When he probed the matter further, it was explained by the assessee that nomenclature of the receipt apart, what has been received by the assessee

THE DY..DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has received a sum of Rs 1,58,00,000 from the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI, in short) as towards the TV rights. When he probed the matter further, it was explained by the assessee that nomenclature of the receipt apart, what has been received by the assessee

SHRI NILESH D. KANKRECHA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 87-88/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Shri Nilesh D. Kankrecha, I.T.O, C-89, Vikramaditya Society, Vs. Ward 7(1)(4), Thakkarbapa Nagar, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-382350. Pan: Bzkpk7991J

D E R PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad dated 13/11/2017 ( in short “Ld.CIT(A)”) arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here

CHAMUNDA FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the CO No.83/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl.

d) of the Act, tax shall be levied on the relevant income or ITA Nos.1071 & 1072/Ahd/2013, CO No.82/Ahd/15 ITA No.829/Ahd/15 (By Revenue) &CO 83/Ahd/15 Chamunda Foundation vs. CIT/ACIT Asst.Years -2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 part of the relevant income at the maximum marginal rate. Therefore, we do not see any reason in interfering with the impugned orders

ITO(EXEMPTIONS),, AHMEDABAD vs. CHAMUNDA FOUNDATION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO No.83/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl.

d) of the Act, tax shall be levied on the relevant income or ITA Nos.1071 & 1072/Ahd/2013, CO No.82/Ahd/15 ITA No.829/Ahd/15 (By Revenue) &CO 83/Ahd/15 Chamunda Foundation vs. CIT/ACIT Asst.Years -2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 part of the relevant income at the maximum marginal rate. Therefore, we do not see any reason in interfering with the impugned orders

SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-5., BARODA

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,BARODA vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-5,, BARODA

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-5., BARODA

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years

GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT..DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years

M/S. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEPTIONS, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years