ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

8. This brings to the element of diverting the income of the trust to the\ntrustees and near relatives. Section 11 of the Act grants exemption to income\nfrom property held for charitable or religious purpose subjects to fulfilment of\ncondition contained therein. Section 13 of the Act, on the other hand, pertains\nto cases where Section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

8– needs to explain source to source of sum credited to his bank account, the appellant submitted that such amended provisions not applicable to current year, thus the appellant should not be asked regarding source of source of lender. (viii) The appellant has also claimed that loans take during the year are repaid in current year or subsequent period hence

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

8– needs to explain source to source of sum credited to his bank account, the appellant submitted that such amended provisions not applicable to current year, thus the appellant should not be asked regarding source of source of lender. (viii) The appellant has also claimed that loans take during the year are repaid in current year or subsequent period hence

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

8– needs to explain source to source of sum credited to his bank account, the appellant submitted that such amended provisions not applicable to current year, thus the appellant should not be asked regarding source of source of lender. (viii) The appellant has also claimed that loans take during the year are repaid in current year or subsequent period hence

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

13-11-2013) which has analyzed this issue in detail and held that 0.53% corporate guarantee rate in that case was appropriate. We therefore set aside the issue to the TPO to decide the quantum of corporate guarantee rates in the instant case following the method adopted in Glenmark Pharmaceuticals (supra). 52.4 In this regard we also find support

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

13-11-2013) which has analyzed this issue in detail and held that 0.53% corporate guarantee rate in that case was appropriate. We therefore set aside the issue to the TPO to decide the quantum of corporate guarantee rates in the instant case following the method adopted in Glenmark Pharmaceuticals (supra). 52.4 In this regard we also find support

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

13-11-2013) which has analyzed this issue in detail and held that 0.53% corporate guarantee rate in that case was appropriate. We therefore set aside the issue to the TPO to decide the quantum of corporate guarantee rates in the instant case following the method adopted in Glenmark Pharmaceuticals (supra). 52.4 In this regard we also find support

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

13-11-2013) which has analyzed this issue in detail and held that 0.53% corporate guarantee rate in that case was appropriate. We therefore set aside the issue to the TPO to decide the quantum of corporate guarantee rates in the instant case following the method adopted in Glenmark Pharmaceuticals (supra). 52.4 In this regard we also find support

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

13-11-2013) which has analyzed this issue in detail and held that 0.53% corporate guarantee rate in that case was appropriate. We therefore set aside the issue to the TPO to decide the quantum of corporate guarantee rates in the instant case following the method adopted in Glenmark Pharmaceuticals (supra). 52.4 In this regard we also find support

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

13-11-2013) which has analyzed this issue in detail and held that 0.53% corporate guarantee rate in that case was appropriate. We therefore set aside the issue to the TPO to decide the quantum of corporate guarantee rates in the instant case following the method adopted in Glenmark Pharmaceuticals (supra). 52.4 In this regard we also find support

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

68[(ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure in India…” Section 13(i)(d) “(d) 1 in the case of a trust for charitable or religious purposes or a charitable

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

68[(ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure in India…” Section 13(i)(d) “(d) 1 in the case of a trust for charitable or religious purposes or a charitable

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

68[(ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure in India…” Section 13(i)(d) “(d) 1 in the case of a trust for charitable or religious purposes or a charitable

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

68[(ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure in India…” Section 13(i)(d) “(d) 1 in the case of a trust for charitable or religious purposes or a charitable

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. STHAPATYA SHILP CONSTRUCTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 907/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.170/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 2, Abhiraj Complex, Ahmedabad. 68-B, Swastic Society, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs2922P

8. Let us, in the light of this legal position, revert to the facts of the case before us. All that the reasons recorded for reopening indicate is that cash deposits aggregating to Rs 10,24,100 have been made in the bank account of the assessee, but the mere fact that these deposits have been made in a bank

SHRI UMIYA COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. ,1, SENETARY ROAD , KUTCHHI PATIDAR VADI, PETLAD TAL. PETLAD DIST. ANAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

8– have been made under Section 68 of the Act since the assessee has discharged the onus to prove the cash credits by providing the identity of the parties, substantiating the genuineness of the transaction and also giving proof of creditworthiness of parties. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has not disputed the particulars of members furnished before

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GTC OILFIELDS SERVICES P. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the 8 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royappeal No. Ay Appellant Respondent Sn M/S. Gtc Oilfields Services P. Ltd., 2009-10 The Dcit, 61, New York Tower, A-Block, It(Ss)A Nos. 1-3 2010-11 Central Circle 1(4), Thaltej Char Rasta, S.G. Road, 314 To 316/Ahd/2019 2014-15 Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380054 Pan : Aaacg 8684 P The Dcit, M/S. Gtc Oilfields Services P. Ltd.

Section 68 of the Act by treating the share capital and share premium amounts as unexplained cash credit were not sustainable as rightly held by the learned CIT(A). 14. At the time of hearing before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee has emphasized that the facts involved in the present cases are materially similar to the facts

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SARTHAV BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 908/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sarthav Builders, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. B-1, Abhishree Complex, Ahmedabad. Opp. Star Bazar, Satellite, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs3812C

8 of the view that there was sufficient cash balance available with the assessee throughout the year and therefore there was no reason for the assessee to withdraw the cash in the denomination of ₹ 5 lacs and re-deposit the same. As per the AO the modus operandi of the assessee was very unusual. Thus the AO treated the amount