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

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

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

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

10. Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that the unaccounted receipts pertain to the transfer of capital assets and, therefore, should be taxed under the head "Capital Gains" in the year of transfer only. The assessee further claimed that the unaccounted expenses have been sourced from the same receipts and thus no separate addition under Section 69C is warranted

SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital gains and loss, both STCG/STCL and LTCG/LTCL as per their statements, their averments cannot be stretched/extended arbitrarily to mean that they are applicable to trading transactions also. 5. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in not appreciating that the provisions of Section 132(4A) are applicable in case of Shri Shirish Shah

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital gains and loss, both STCG/STCL and LTCG/LTCL as per their statements, their averments cannot be stretched/extended arbitrarily to mean that they are applicable to trading transactions also. 5. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in not appreciating that the provisions of Section 132(4A) are applicable in case of Shri Shirish Shah

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital gains and loss, both STCG/STCL and LTCG/LTCL as per their statements, their averments cannot be stretched/extended arbitrarily to mean that they are applicable to trading transactions also. 5. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in not appreciating that the provisions of Section 132(4A) are applicable in case of Shri Shirish Shah

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

30. In response, the Ld. D.R. submitted that he had nothing to further state on this issue and relied on the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) on the appellate order. 31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

30. In response, the Ld. D.R. submitted that he had nothing to further state on this issue and relied on the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) on the appellate order. 31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

30. In response, the Ld. D.R. submitted that he had nothing to further state on this issue and relied on the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) on the appellate order. 31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

30. In response, the Ld. D.R. submitted that he had nothing to further state on this issue and relied on the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) on the appellate order. 31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

30. In response, the Ld. D.R. submitted that he had nothing to further state on this issue and relied on the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) on the appellate order. 31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

30. In response, the Ld. D.R. submitted that he had nothing to further state on this issue and relied on the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) on the appellate order. 31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

30. In response, the Ld. D.R. submitted that he had nothing to further state on this issue and relied on the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) on the appellate order. 31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA