RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD.,),HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

56,70,614/-, by making various additions/disallowances of Rs.13,19,12,485/- as capital gains under normal provisions of the Act and Rs.129,12,24,408/- as book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed/deleted some of the additions/ disallowances

JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

56,70,614/-, by making various additions/disallowances of Rs.13,19,12,485/- as capital gains under normal provisions of the Act and Rs.129,12,24,408/- as book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed/deleted some of the additions/ disallowances

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

section 2(15) is not applicable to the instant case of the assessee.Neither Sudarshan Kriya falls within the residuary category of ‘education’ or ‘medical relief’. 8.6 It is also a fact that donations have been received which has shown as voluntary contribution including the contributions from the corporate who are benefited out of these programs for their own staff

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

section 2(15) is not applicable to the instant case of the assessee.Neither Sudarshan Kriya falls within the residuary category of ‘education’ or ‘medical relief’. 8.6 It is also a fact that donations have been received which has shown as voluntary contribution including the contributions from the corporate who are benefited out of these programs for their own staff

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

section 2(15) is not applicable to the instant case of the assessee.Neither Sudarshan Kriya falls within the residuary category of ‘education’ or ‘medical relief’. 8.6 It is also a fact that donations have been received which has shown as voluntary contribution including the contributions from the corporate who are benefited out of these programs for their own staff

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

section 2(15) is not applicable to the instant case of the assessee.Neither Sudarshan Kriya falls within the residuary category of ‘education’ or ‘medical relief’. 8.6 It is also a fact that donations have been received which has shown as voluntary contribution including the contributions from the corporate who are benefited out of these programs for their own staff

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. ANILKUMAR OCHHAVLAL DESAI, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Jurisdictional Assessing Officer?

68 of the Act. 4. In appeal before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the initiation of proceedings and Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: Based on the above submissions the legal heir submits that the assessment order is to be quashed and set aside." I.T.A No. 292/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page

SANDEEP MOHANRAJ SINGHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE4(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

68 of I.T. Act, 1961, is not sustainable….” 11. The Revenue has been unable to controvert the findings of Ld. CIT(A) regarding the source of funds utilised by Arrow for acquisition of shares of the assessee trust. The assessee had not only established the genuineness of the transactions but also brought on record evidences to establish the creditworthiness

AURA SECURITIES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

section 56(2) or 68 of the Act as the case may be. But there is no provision to tax the investment

AURA SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

section 56(2) or 68 of the Act as the case may be. But there is no provision to tax the investment

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

section 2(15) is not applicable to the instant case of the assessee.Neither Sudarshan Kriya falls within the residuary category of 'education ' or 'medical relief'. 8.6 It is also a fact that donations have been received which has shown as voluntary contribution including the contributions from the corporate who are benefited out of these programs for their own staff

ADANI AGRO PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee appeal is thus allowed

Bench: Shri O. P. Meena& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 56(2) or 68 of the Act as the case may be. But there is no provision to tax the investment

UNION BANK CO. OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1228 & 1229/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Respectively Union Bank Co-Op. Credit The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Society Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1) V/S. 1, Dhalaxmi Market Ahmedabad Revadi Bazar Kalupur Ahmedabad – 380 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aaau 0802 F (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil Kshatriya, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Bhavna Gupta Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

68,395/- Allowable Exemption u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) Interest on Interest on Members Members Loan Rs. Loan Rs. 82,29,369/- 74,71,157/- 3. The assessee preferred and appeal before the CIT(A) against the order of AO. The CIT(A) upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in both assessment years

UNION BANK CO.OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1228 & 1229/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Respectively Union Bank Co-Op. Credit The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Society Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1) V/S. 1, Dhalaxmi Market Ahmedabad Revadi Bazar Kalupur Ahmedabad – 380 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aaau 0802 F (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil Kshatriya, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Bhavna Gupta Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

68,395/- Allowable Exemption u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) Interest on Interest on Members Members Loan Rs. Loan Rs. 82,29,369/- 74,71,157/- 3. The assessee preferred and appeal before the CIT(A) against the order of AO. The CIT(A) upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in both assessment years

MOHAN BHAGWATPRASAD AGRAWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shrio. P. Meena & Mrs. Madumita Roy

56,335. Excluding the income earned by AMPL by way of interest, the other business had resulted into net loss. In our view, the ITAT has taken into consideration the relevant factors and has applied the correct tests to come to the conclusion that lending of money was substantial part of the business of the AMPL. Since lending of money

THY ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), , AHMEDABAD vs. M & B ENGINEERING LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

56,350/- under section 40(a)(ia) made by the AO is directed to lie deleted.” 12. We find that the same issue was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in respect of A.Y. 2012-13 in assessee’s own case in revenues appeal which was ultimately decided in favour of the assessee by dismissing the said appeal

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

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