VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

20A-43D which includes section 41(1) also. 12. Thus where Assessing Officer finds that claim has already been allowed in the earlier year then such benefit under section 80-IA should be given to the profits taxed under section 41(1). The argument of ld. AR is that once it has declared profits under section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

section 80-IA of the Act. 64.1 However, the AO was of the view that no benefit of bad debts recovery can be granted by allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that the amount of bad debt was recognized by the assessee when its unit was not eligible for deduction under section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

section 80-IA of the Act. 64.1 However, the AO was of the view that no benefit of bad debts recovery can be granted by allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that the amount of bad debt was recognized by the assessee when its unit was not eligible for deduction under section

GHCL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

1) ( Page no. 1 to 10 of paper book 3A) After turning around and stabilizing its Textile spinning business, GHCL decided to be a global player in Textile segment. For this purpose , GHCL in In 2004, engaged KSA Technopak, a leading Consulting firm in Textiles & Retail to advise the company to identify the area of expansion in Textiles. Based

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GHCL LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

1) ( Page no. 1 to 10 of paper book 3A) After turning around and stabilizing its Textile spinning business, GHCL decided to be a global player in Textile segment. For this purpose , GHCL in In 2004, engaged KSA Technopak, a leading Consulting firm in Textiles & Retail to advise the company to identify the area of expansion in Textiles. Based

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

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

20A), 10(23) and 10(29) were omitted by Finance Act, 2002. Prior to omission Sec-10(23) was as under:- 10(23) - "any income of an association or institution established in India which may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette having regard to the fact that the association or institution has at its object

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

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

20A), 10(23) and 10(29) were omitted by Finance Act, 2002. Prior to omission Sec-10(23) was as under:- 10(23) - "any income of an association or institution established in India which may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette having regard to the fact that the association or institution has at its object

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

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

20A), 10(23) and 10(29) were omitted by Finance Act, 2002. Prior to omission Sec-10(23) was as under:- 10(23) - "any income of an association or institution established in India which may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette having regard to the fact that the association or institution has at its object

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

20A), 10(23) and 10(29) were omitted by Finance Act, 2002. Prior to omission Sec-10(23) was as under:- 10(23) - "any income of an association or institution established in India which may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette having regard to the fact that the association or institution has at its object

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

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

20A), 10(23) and 10(29) were omitted by Finance Act, 2002. Prior to omission Sec-10(23) was as under:- 10(23) - "any income of an association or institution established in India which may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette having regard to the fact that the association or institution has at its object

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

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

20A), 10(23) and 10(29) were omitted by Finance Act, 2002. Prior to omission Sec-10(23) was as under:- 10(23) - "any income of an association or institution established in India which may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette having regard to the fact that the association or institution has at its object

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

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

20A), 10(23) and 10(29) were omitted by Finance Act, 2002. Prior to omission Sec-10(23) was as under:- 10(23) - "any income of an association or institution established in India which may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette having regard to the fact that the association or institution has at its object

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

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

20A), 10(23) and 10(29) were omitted by Finance Act, 2002. Prior to omission Sec-10(23) was as under:- 10(23) - "any income of an association or institution established in India which may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette having regard to the fact that the association or institution has at its object

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

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

20A), 10(23) and 10(29) were omitted by Finance Act, 2002. Prior to omission Sec-10(23) was as under:- 10(23) - "any income of an association or institution established in India which may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette having regard to the fact that the association or institution has at its object