SCARLETT DESIGNS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Gain 15,55,609/- Long Term Capital Loss (-) 30,586/- Gross Total Income (-) 6,68,079/- Less : Losses allowed to be carried forward 6,68,079/- Total Income Nil____ The CPC, Banglore, allowed to carry-forward following losses: 1. Unabsorbed depreciation for A.Y. 2009-10 1,79,378/- 2. Short Term Capital Loss

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.

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

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

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 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

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

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.

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

VINODKUMAR S TOTLA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

rectification u/s. 154 of the Act, which can be invoked only to rectify “mistakes apparent from the record” and in the 154 order, the ld. A.O. has done a detailed analysis to come to the conclusion that the assessee has earned a short term capital gain

MR. JOBANJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO. WARD-3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.264/Ahd/2019\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16\nMr. Jobanji Thakor\nThe ITO\nF-40, Abugiri Society\nबनाम / Ward-3(2)(2)\nTal. Daskroi, Jagatpur\nv/s.\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad - 382 470\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AKNPT 2930 M\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nShri Mehul K. Patel, AR\nRevenue by :\nShri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date of

capital gains should\nnot have been taxed.\n- The investments in agricultural land should qualify for exemption\nunder Section 54B, irrespective of minor technical discrepancies.\n- The brother's claim under Section 54B of the Act should not affect the\nassessee's claim, as both contributed towards the purchase and the AO\nof the brother had subsequently passed a rectification

THE MADHAVPURA MERCANTILE CO. OP. BANK LIMITED (UNDER LIQUIDATION),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

rectification proceeding u/s. 154 of the Act. 13. Per Contra Shri R P Rastogi, the Ld. CIT-DR, supported the order of the lower authorities. 14. We have considered the rival submissions. We don’t find any merit in the contention of the assessee that income derived on sale of depreciable assets, was business income accrued u/s

THE MADHAVPURA MERCANTILE CO. OP. BANK LIMITED (UNDER LIQUIDATION),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

rectification proceeding u/s. 154 of the Act. 13. Per Contra Shri R P Rastogi, the Ld. CIT-DR, supported the order of the lower authorities. 14. We have considered the rival submissions. We don’t find any merit in the contention of the assessee that income derived on sale of depreciable assets, was business income accrued u/s

JITENDRA SHANTILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-14(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2011-12 Jitendra Shantilal Patel Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3) 2, Ajubhai Park, Ahmedabad. Opp: Panetar Party Plot Thaltej, Ahmedabad 380 059. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A) Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 17.10.2018 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2011-12. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee In His Appeal As Under: “1. Order Bad In Law: The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals - 4 Grossly Erred To Uphold Order Of Assessing Officer Disrespecting Order Of Hon'Ble Gujarat High Court. 2. Order Passed Overlooking Judicial Discipline & Precedents: 2

u/s 154 of the IT Act 1961 3. The Rectification application dated 25/08/2018 is hereby rejected, (Subhash Bains) Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad” 3 4. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that this in itself is sufficient for the order of the ld.CIT(A) to be set aside and rectification application filed by the assessee to be allowed

SHRI AMBALAL SOMABHAI (KUMBHAR) PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 315/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Ambalal Somabhai (Kumbhar) Prajapati Ito, Ward-7(1)(2) 1, Devi Annapurna Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Gurudwara, B/H. West & Park Thaltej, Bodakdev Ahmedabad 380058. Pan : Abgpk 5078 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.Dr

rectification i.e. Total income returned + taxable capital gain (144960-140880) Rectified u/s. 154 r.w.s. 250 of the IT Act. Give

SHRI URMIL D. PATEL,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(6),, BARODA

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

rectification application u/s. 154 of the act before the assessing officer dated 7th July, 2012 pointing out that during the year under consideration he has earned income in the form of long term gain from share in sale of land to the tune of Rs. 12,11,666/-, however, while working out long term capital

SIDDHANT JAYANTIBHAI PAWASIA,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed ex parte

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

capital gain is not allowable. Accordingly his application for rectification u/s 154 of the IT Act is hereby rejected and the revised

ANAND DILIPBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: 3

capital gain of Rs. 2,53,211/- in the return of income filed with the Department. Later, the assessee filed an application u/s. 154 6 I.T.A No. 898/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2021-22 Page No. Anand Dilipbhai Patel v. ITO for rectification

SURESH NATVARLAL ZINZUWADIA,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

capital gains, but was only regarding Chapter VI-A deductions, hence no opportunity was given for LTCG adjustment. The appellant filed rectification u/s 154

M/S. VAIBHAV CONSTRUCTION,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,, ANAND

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

capital" from the partner. In view of the same an inference was drawn that land has not been bought by the assessee developer. Apart from the above the AO has once again referred to the objections raised in the original assessment proceedings with regards the area of the plot being less than 1 acre and therefore, the condition of section