JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

ii) of the act. According to the appellant the income generated out of the activities of the Treasury Segment has been offered to tax under the head capital gain and dividend income is claimed as exempt and no income of Treasury Segment was offered as business income. A.O has correctly pointed out that the various investments made by the appellant

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2015), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(5), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2015), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(5), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2015), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(5), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2015), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(5), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2015), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(5), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2015), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(5), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI KAILASH RAMAVATAR GOENKA, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

10,00,000 69C - Unaccounted cash investment in f 3,38,050 3,14,74,000 2,30,06,000 respect of Kharoj 6,02,000 and Shilpgram - Unaccounted cash Receipts in respect g NIL 5,80,05,600 2,85,00,000 3,17,35,000 of Kharoj and Shilpgram - Unaccounted cash

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

14. In support of the claim for deduction under Section 54B of the Act, the\nassessee reiterated reliance on the decision of the Income Tax Appellate\nTribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, in the case of Laxminarayan vs. Income-tax\nOfficer, where it was held that the objective of Section 54B of the Act is to\nencourage reinvestment in agricultural lands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri