PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC (1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHEMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT (Inv.), Ahmedabad who was directly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

TDS), Ahmedabad\n(iv) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Rajkot\n(v) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Surat\n(vi) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Vadodara\n16.\nIt is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT,\nAhmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief\nCommissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT,\nAhmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT (Inv.),\nAhmedabad

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

TDS), Ahmedabad\n(iv) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Rajkot\n(v) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Surat\n(vi) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Vadodara\n16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT,\nAhmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief\nCommissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT,\nAhmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT (Inv.),\nAhmedabad

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

TDS), Ahmedabad\n(iv) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Rajkot\n(v) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Surat\n(vi) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Vadodara\n16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT,\nAhmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief\nCommissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT,\nAhmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT (Inv.),\nAhmedabad

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

TDS), Ahmedabad\n(iv) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Rajkot\n(v) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Surat\n(vi) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Vadodara\n16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT,\nAhmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief\nCommissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT,\nAhmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT (Inv.),\nAhmedabad

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

TDS), Ahmedabad\n(iv) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Rajkot\n(v) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Surat\n(vi) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Vadodara\n16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT,\nAhmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief\nCommissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT,\nAhmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT (Inv.),\nAhmedabad

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

TDS), Ahmedabad\n(iv) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Rajkot\n(v) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Surat\n(vi) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Vadodara\n16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT,\nAhmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief\nCommissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT,\nAhmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT (Inv.),\nAhmedabad

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

TDS), Ahmedabad\n(iv) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Rajkot\n(v) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Surat\n(vi) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Vadodara\n16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT,\nAhmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief\nCommissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT,\nAhmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT (Inv.),\nAhmedabad

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

TDS), Ahmedabad\n(iv) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Rajkot\n(v) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Surat\n(vi) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Vadodara\n16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT,\nAhmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief\nCommissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT,\nAhmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT (Inv.),\nAhmedabad

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS as per section 194H on payment in the nature of Sub- brokerage for IPO. 6.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by directing to treat profit from KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 sale of shares held only up to 30 days as business

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS as per section 194H on payment in the nature of Sub- brokerage for IPO. 6.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by directing to treat profit from KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 sale of shares held only up to 30 days as business