INDUSFACE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the nature of the transaction, which resulted in the impugned income, required further consideration. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order which taxed long-term capital gains at the short-term capital gains rate, applying Section 50 instead of Section 112 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee also contested the charging of interest under Section 234B.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether Section 50 or Section 112 of the Income Tax Act was applicable for taxing long-term capital gains. Another issue was the applicability of interest under Section 234B.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Per Pramod Kumar, VP:
By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 27th June 2017, passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14.
Grievances raised by the appellant are as follows : 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara [“the CIT(A)”] erred in fact and in law in charging to tax gains arising on transfer of long term capital asset at the rate applicable to short-term capital gain. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in holding that section 50 instead of section 112 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is applicable for determining the rate at which capital gains, arising on transfer of long term capital asset, is chargeable to tax.
ITA No.: 1990/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Page 2 of 2 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), Vadodara (“the AO”) in charging interest u/s. 234B of the Act.
Vide our order of even date in the case of Ashish Tandon, the then Chairman of the Company, we have made certain observations with respect to the nature of transaction which has resulted in the impugned income in the hands of this assessee as also in the case of Ashish Tandon. These observations may have some relevance in the adjudication on this appeal as well. However, as that decision was not available at the point of time when this appeal was heard, we consider it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law by way of a speaking order on specific contentions raised by the assessee, after giving yet another opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In view of the above discussions and bearing in mind entirety of the case, we remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) in terms of direction above.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court today on the 8th day of February, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- Madhumita Roy Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Accountant Member) Ahmedabad, dated the 8th day of February, 2019. PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) Guard File
By order
Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad
More judgments on Section 50
- Karnavati Rolling Mills Private Limited… vs The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 1714/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Edwise International Prop Edwise… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cirlce…ITA 4878/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Mohammed Afzal & Bros, Ahmedabad vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 1159/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Aquarius Transnational, Mumbai vs ITO-12(1)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar BhawanITA 5553/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Sudesh Synthetic Mills Private Limited… vs DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), SuratITA 739/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026