RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD.,),HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

gains tax by virtue of various clauses forming a part of Section 47 of the IT Act subjected to the applications of provisions of Section 2(19AA) of the Act. It is also settled position of law that the scheme of demerger once approved by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, it cannot be re-visited by any statutory authority

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

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

RAVINDRABHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5) NOW ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Ito Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Vs. Ward-1(2)(5). Patel Now Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) 86,Kanha Residency Vadodara – 390 007 Kalali Road, Kalali Ahmedabad – 390 012 [Pan : Aigpp 8415 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Assessee Represented By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

sections 54B and 54F of the Act. It was contended that the assessee had duly complied with all substantive conditions for claiming deduction and that the entire capital gains had been reinvested in eligible assets within the permissible time. Accordingly, it was submitted that the additions sustained by the CIT(A) be deleted, the long-term capital gain be accepted

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

sections of the Act. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” V. Grounds of Appeal in IT(SS)A No.5/Ahd/2023 for AY 2016-17 (Revenue’s appeal): “1. In the facts

NIRMA CHEMICAL WORKS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

10-2009. The concluding para of this order is reproduced as under. "26. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the assessee is right in claiming that the capital gains arising on the sale of the deep discount bonds should be assessed as long term capital gains on the footing that he. h&ld them

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

10-2009. The concluding para of this order is reproduced as under. "26. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the assessee is right in claiming that the capital gains arising on the sale of the deep discount bonds should be assessed as long term capital gains on the footing that he. h&ld them

NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

10-2009. The concluding para of this order is reproduced as under. "26. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the assessee is right in claiming that the capital gains arising on the sale of the deep discount bonds should be assessed as long term capital gains on the footing that he. h&ld them

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

10-2009. The concluding para of this order is reproduced as under. "26. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the assessee is right in claiming that the capital gains arising on the sale of the deep discount bonds should be assessed as long term capital gains on the footing that he. h&ld them

NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

10-2009. The concluding para of this order is reproduced as under. "26. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the assessee is right in claiming that the capital gains arising on the sale of the deep discount bonds should be assessed as long term capital gains on the footing that he. h&ld them

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

10-2009. The concluding para of this order is reproduced as under. "26. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the assessee is right in claiming that the capital gains arising on the sale of the deep discount bonds should be assessed as long term capital gains on the footing that he. h&ld them

SUMIT H BHAGCHANDANI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue for our consideration is confined to the computation of deduction under section 54F of the Act and, more particularly, whether the assessee is entitled to deduction of the entire amount claimed or only to a proportionate deduction as computed by the Assessing Officer

MOHSIN ZULFIKAR KORADIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Mohsin Zulfikar Koradia The Pr.Cit-3 C/O.Gujarat Food Industries Vs Ahmedabad. 4324 Phase Iv Gidc Vatva Ahmedabad 382 445 Pan : Htpk 0799 C

29,111/91. 4) Details of exempted LTCG on share/securities u/s. 10(38) for Rs. 8,31,362/- in the following format:- Sr. (Purchase [Sale [Holding period (Capital Gain Script No |Qty. Date Rs. Date Rs. I I I I I I I 5) In the case purchase/sale of "VAS Infrastructure Ltd.", give following details:- (A) In the case of purchase

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

29,16,360/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, while framing the assessment in the hands of the assessee. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in the hands of the assessee with the following observation: “Even in the present case Appellant has failed to establish unexplained sale proceeds of Block No.77 (79223 sq.mt.) which

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

29,16,360/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, while framing the assessment in the hands of the assessee. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in the hands of the assessee with the following observation: “Even in the present case Appellant has failed to establish unexplained sale proceeds of Block No.77 (79223 sq.mt.) which