KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 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

business income and to assess the balance gain as short term capital gain] long term capital gain, keeping view decision

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS SECURITIES LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

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

business income and to assess the balance gain as short term capital gain] long term capital gain, keeping view decision

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHANDWALA INTEGRATED FINANCIAL SERVICES 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

business income and to assess the balance gain as short term capital gain] long term capital gain, keeping view decision

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

business income and to assess the balance gain as short term capital gain] long term capital gain, keeping view decision

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 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

business income and to assess the balance gain as short term capital gain] long term capital gain, keeping view decision

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

business income and to assess the balance gain as short term capital gain] long term capital gain, keeping view decision

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

Gain or Long Term Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or Long Term Capital loss”. From the Asstt.Year 2008-09, the ld.CIT(A) did not concur with his predecessor and took a contrary view, whereby the alleged investment in the shares has been treated as a trading activity. Gain/loss on sale of such shares has been assessed as business income

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

Gain or Long Term Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or Long Term Capital loss”. From the Asstt.Year 2008-09, the ld.CIT(A) did not concur with his predecessor and took a contrary view, whereby the alleged investment in the shares has been treated as a trading activity. Gain/loss on sale of such shares has been assessed as business income

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

Gain or Long Term Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or Long Term Capital loss”. From the Asstt.Year 2008-09, the ld.CIT(A) did not concur with his predecessor and took a contrary view, whereby the alleged investment in the shares has been treated as a trading activity. Gain/loss on sale of such shares has been assessed as business income

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

Gain or Long Term Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or Long Term Capital loss”. From the Asstt.Year 2008-09, the ld.CIT(A) did not concur with his predecessor and took a contrary view, whereby the alleged investment in the shares has been treated as a trading activity. Gain/loss on sale of such shares has been assessed as business income

THA ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

Gain or Long Term Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or Long Term Capital loss”. From the Asstt.Year 2008-09, the ld.CIT(A) did not concur with his predecessor and took a contrary view, whereby the alleged investment in the shares has been treated as a trading activity. Gain/loss on sale of such shares has been assessed as business income

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

Gain or Long Term Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or Long Term Capital loss”. From the Asstt.Year 2008-09, the ld.CIT(A) did not concur with his predecessor and took a contrary view, whereby the alleged investment in the shares has been treated as a trading activity. Gain/loss on sale of such shares has been assessed as business income

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

Gain or Long Term Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or Long Term Capital loss”. From the Asstt.Year 2008-09, the ld.CIT(A) did not concur with his predecessor and took a contrary view, whereby the alleged investment in the shares has been treated as a trading activity. Gain/loss on sale of such shares has been assessed as business income

M/S. CHANDAN INFRATECH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

Capital Gain (STCG) of Rs. 22.36 crore should not be taxed as business income, since there was no business activity

SHRI HARISHBHAI KESHAVLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-7,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1180/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

Gain Income of Rs. 1,86,43,436/- as Business Income. 2.1 The facts of the case are that the assessee an Individual and engaged in the business of Trading of Tobacco Products etc. The assessee in the year under consideration declared Short Term Capital

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI KETAN V. SHAH,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Itano.3288/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014

gain income declared by the assessee as business income on the ground that the assessee is carrying out a business activity of the purchase and sale of shares. However the Ld.CIT (A) reversed the order of the AO by holding that the impugned income declared by the assessee represents the income under the head capital

SHRI ASHOKKUMAR KHIMRAJ,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1247/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Shri Ashokkumar Khimraj Ito, बनाम/ Prop. Ridhi Siddhi Ward – 3(1), Vs. Enterprises, 21, Shitalkunj Ahmedabad. Society, Rambaug Road, Ahmedabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afdpk 6404 N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Parin Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vinod Talwani, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

income shown under the head Short term capital gain and Long term capital gain as the business income of the appellant

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD vs. JHAVERI SANDEEP BIPINCHANDRA (HUF), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2016-17 Jhaveri Sandeep Income Tax Officer, Vs. Bipinchandra (Huf), Ward-5(3)(1), 21, Crest Nutan Laxmi Soc., Ahmedabad 9Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400049 Pan : Aachj 0855 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Pune-12 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 24.08.2023 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 Raised By The Department Reads As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Treating The Income Of Rs. 54,49,539/- As Short Term Capital Gain Instead Of Business Income.” 3. The Issue Raised In The Above Ground Relates To The Short Term Capital Gain Returned By The Assessee, On The Transactions Of Dealing In Shares, As Ito Vs Jhaveri Sandeep Bipinchandra Huf Ay : 2016-17 2

gains, he set aside the order of the Assessing Officer treating the income earned from the trading activity in shares as business income and held that the income returned by the assessee by way of Short Term Capital