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.

capital. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee brought to the notice copies of resolutions of both the companies, and therefore, the ld.CIT(A) was satisfied that it was not bogus transaction or a colourable transaction. The assessee basically has not suffered any loss, rather long term capital loss arose account of indexation of cost, as the investment was long term

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.

capital. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee brought to the notice copies of resolutions of both the companies, and therefore, the ld.CIT(A) was satisfied that it was not bogus transaction or a colourable transaction. The assessee basically has not suffered any loss, rather long term capital loss arose account of indexation of cost, as the investment was long term

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.

capital. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee brought to the notice copies of resolutions of both the companies, and therefore, the ld.CIT(A) was satisfied that it was not bogus transaction or a colourable transaction. The assessee basically has not suffered any loss, rather long term capital loss arose account of indexation of cost, as the investment was long term

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.

capital. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee brought to the notice copies of resolutions of both the companies, and therefore, the ld.CIT(A) was satisfied that it was not bogus transaction or a colourable transaction. The assessee basically has not suffered any loss, rather long term capital loss arose account of indexation of cost, as the investment was long term

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.

capital. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee brought to the notice copies of resolutions of both the companies, and therefore, the ld.CIT(A) was satisfied that it was not bogus transaction or a colourable transaction. The assessee basically has not suffered any loss, rather long term capital loss arose account of indexation of cost, as the investment was long term

SMT. JYOTI SUNIL MANIYAR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 888/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Smt Joyti Sunil Maniyar, Ito, बनाम/ C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate Ward – 2(4), Vs. 903, Sapphire Complex, Ahmedabad. C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agepa 2433 K .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Ketan Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Lalit P Jain, Sr. D.R.

capital gain to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 15.12.2011 u/s 143(3) of the Act. Smt. Jyoti Sunil Maniyar vs. ITO A.Y. 2009-10 5.1 The assessee in its assessment order initiated the penalty

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

capital gain of Rs. 22,36,38,580 as the business income. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of AO in charging interest u/s. 234B & 234C of the Act. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in initiating penalty

SARLABEN R. ARORA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.2072/Ahd/2015 & "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008

gain as long term capital and passed order in accordance with law. Assessee’s appeal is thus allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 11. Since the penalty

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block

SHRI BALKRISHNA P.TRIVEDI,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT-III,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

penalty under Section order order dated dated 1225/Ahd/13 Balkrishna P. 2008- 18.03.13 30.09.10 143(3) of the Trivedi HUF 09 Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) 1229/Ahd/16 -Do- -Do- 01.02.2016 24.03.2014 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act 997/Ahd/16 -Do- -Do- -Do- -Do- -Do- 2. When the matter was called for hearing, the learned AR for the assessee