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

iii), any change in the value of assets consequent to their revaluation shall be ignored. Section 47(vib) reads as under:- “Transactions not regarded as transfer.. 47. Nothing contained in section 45 shall apply to the following transfers :— …… …… ITA Nos. 1184/Ahd/2018 & 1225/Ahd/2018 Assessee : Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (I) Ltd Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 17– [(vib) any transfer, in a demerger

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

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

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

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

iii) of the Explanation to Section 48 clearly defines "indexed cost of improvement" to include indexation up to the year in which the asset is transferred, irrespective of the timing of the receipt of sale proceeds or the incurrence of expenditure. By restricting the benefit of indexation to the year of receipt of sale proceeds, the CIT(A) failed

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

iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO held that the land was a\ncapital asset and subject to capital gains tax.\n2. 3. On verification of the computation of total income furnished by the AR\nvide letter dated 01.12.2017, the AO noted that the assessee had considered\nthe net sale consideration of his share at Rs.2,08,10

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10% of the impugned addition and the same was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as well. 14. Before us, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the underlying addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, it was submitted that though there can be “protective addition” in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10% of the impugned addition and the same was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as well. 14. Before us, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the underlying addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, it was submitted that though there can be “protective addition” in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10% of the impugned addition and the same was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as well. 14. Before us, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the underlying addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, it was submitted that though there can be “protective addition” in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10% of the impugned addition and the same was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as well. 14. Before us, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the underlying addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, it was submitted that though there can be “protective addition” in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10% of the impugned addition and the same was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as well. 14. Before us, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the underlying addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, it was submitted that though there can be “protective addition” in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10% of the impugned addition and the same was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as well. 14. Before us, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the underlying addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, it was submitted that though there can be “protective addition” in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10% of the impugned addition and the same was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as well. 14. Before us, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the underlying addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, it was submitted that though there can be “protective addition” in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10% of the impugned addition and the same was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as well. 14. Before us, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the underlying addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, it was submitted that though there can be “protective addition” in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10% of the impugned addition and the same was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as well. 14. Before us, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the underlying addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, it was submitted that though there can be “protective addition” in the hands