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

20,002/- made by AO u/s 14A r.w.r 8D( of the Act, on account of interest expense, as the appellant is having huge interest income and borrowed funds are used for broking business. 3.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact in deleting the addition of Rs.1,19,85,613/- made by AO, on account of bad debts

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

20,002/- made by AO u/s 14A r.w.r 8D( of the Act, on account of interest expense, as the appellant is having huge interest income and borrowed funds are used for broking business. 3.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact in deleting the addition of Rs.1,19,85,613/- made by AO, on account of bad debts

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

20,002/- made by AO u/s 14A r.w.r 8D( of the Act, on account of interest expense, as the appellant is having huge interest income and borrowed funds are used for broking business. 3.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact in deleting the addition of Rs.1,19,85,613/- made by AO, on account of bad debts

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

20,002/- made by AO u/s 14A r.w.r 8D( of the Act, on account of interest expense, as the appellant is having huge interest income and borrowed funds are used for broking business. 3.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact in deleting the addition of Rs.1,19,85,613/- made by AO, on account of bad debts

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

20,002/- made by AO u/s 14A r.w.r 8D( of the Act, on account of interest expense, as the appellant is having huge interest income and borrowed funds are used for broking business. 3.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact in deleting the addition of Rs.1,19,85,613/- made by AO, on account of bad debts

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

20,002/- made by AO u/s 14A r.w.r 8D( of the Act, on account of interest expense, as the appellant is having huge interest income and borrowed funds are used for broking business. 3.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact in deleting the addition of Rs.1,19,85,613/- made by AO, on account of bad debts

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

10,00,000/-. Since the assessee held the capital asset for less than thirty six months (2/1/20-03 to 30/6/2003) in the ordinary course, ay per Section 2(42A) of the Act the assessee would have held the asset as a short term capital asset and accordingly liable for short term capital gains tax. However, in view of Explanation

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.

Section 28(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1061 - Business income - Chargeable as -Assessment year 1991-92 - After sale of tea estate assessee-company was engaged in business of real estate and purchase and sale of shares - It showed profit on sale of shares on investment account and claimed such profit as capital gain - Assessing Officer found profit on sale

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.

Section 28(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1061 - Business income - Chargeable as -Assessment year 1991-92 - After sale of tea estate assessee-company was engaged in business of real estate and purchase and sale of shares - It showed profit on sale of shares on investment account and claimed such profit as capital gain - Assessing Officer found profit on sale

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.

Section 28(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1061 - Business income - Chargeable as -Assessment year 1991-92 - After sale of tea estate assessee-company was engaged in business of real estate and purchase and sale of shares - It showed profit on sale of shares on investment account and claimed such profit as capital gain - Assessing Officer found profit on sale

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.

Section 28(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1061 - Business income - Chargeable as -Assessment year 1991-92 - After sale of tea estate assessee-company was engaged in business of real estate and purchase and sale of shares - It showed profit on sale of shares on investment account and claimed such profit as capital gain - Assessing Officer found profit on sale

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.

Section 28(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1061 - Business income - Chargeable as -Assessment year 1991-92 - After sale of tea estate assessee-company was engaged in business of real estate and purchase and sale of shares - It showed profit on sale of shares on investment account and claimed such profit as capital gain - Assessing Officer found profit on sale

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.

Section 28(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1061 - Business income - Chargeable as -Assessment year 1991-92 - After sale of tea estate assessee-company was engaged in business of real estate and purchase and sale of shares - It showed profit on sale of shares on investment account and claimed such profit as capital gain - Assessing Officer found profit on sale

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.

Section 28(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1061 - Business income - Chargeable as -Assessment year 1991-92 - After sale of tea estate assessee-company was engaged in business of real estate and purchase and sale of shares - It showed profit on sale of shares on investment account and claimed such profit as capital gain - Assessing Officer found profit on sale

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. PRATHAM INVESTMENTS,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 76/Ahd/2015 & 9/Ahd/2017 & I.T.A. No. 3087/Ahd/2016 (In I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016) & ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

capital gains". 4. The assessment order does not mention the date on which the shares in question were purchased. We also note that the assessment order records that the assessee had converted and transferred the shares in question under the head ITA No. 747/Ahd/14 [M/s. Pratham Investments vs. DC IT] A.Y. 2005-06 - 10 – "investment" on 1st April, 2004. This

M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 76/Ahd/2015 & 9/Ahd/2017 & I.T.A. No. 3087/Ahd/2016 (In I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016) & ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

capital gains". 4. The assessment order does not mention the date on which the shares in question were purchased. We also note that the assessment order records that the assessee had converted and transferred the shares in question under the head ITA No. 747/Ahd/14 [M/s. Pratham Investments vs. DC IT] A.Y. 2005-06 - 10 – "investment" on 1st April, 2004. This

VINODCHANDRA T PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 457/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Vinodchandra T. Parikh, I.T.O, 31, Shail, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Opp. Madhusudan House, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

20,000.00 Net Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 2,76,10,400.00 Asstt. Year 2013-14 3 4.1 From the above disclosure of income in the assessment year 2010-11, it was noted that the assessee besides claiming the exemption under section

SHRI ASHISH TANDON, ,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

section 55(2)(a). Hence the resultant capital gain is to be computed and charged to tax in the hands of the appellant accordingly. 5.7.5. Besides the reversionary right has accrued to the appellant only on the date of signing of the agreement by IFC with M/s Trend Micro and on the same date, the right has been relinquished