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

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

Capital Gains under section 10(38) of the Act, treating the underlying shares as "penny stocks"; and (iv) Addition on account of alleged on-money received on the sale of property in the Earth Erita project. These additions were made based on material allegedly found during the search action, including digital data like WhatsApp chats retrieved from third-party mobile

SH. RAJESH NARENDRABHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(2), VADODARA, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Shri Rajesh Narendrabhai Patel Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) Baroda Bolt & Engineering Works Vadodara. Opp: Lalbaug Atitigruh Pratapnagar Vadodara Pan : Acqpp 6089 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : None : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 50C(2). The Valuation Officer determined the value of the property at Rs.1,67,82,104/-. Thereafter, the AO recomputed the long-term capital gain

TANVI SANDEEP MATHUR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Capital Gain (STCG) comes to Rs.77,00,000/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer charged the assessee’s income to tax as STCG thereby not allowing the deduction of Rs.47,00,000/- claimed under Section 54 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. TANMAI RAJ GOPAL, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

104, Kalhaar Exotica, Off. Ahmedabad Science City Road, Sola, Ahmedabad-380060 [PAN No.AMZPG3744N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Ms. Samiksha Yadav, AR Appellant by : Respondent by : Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 24.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 O R D E R PER: ANNAPURNA GUPTA - AM: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order

JT. CTI (OSD), CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

gains would be determined in the prescribed manner. Rule 8AC has been prescribed for this purpose.  Section 55: Meaning of 'Cost of Acquisition' in case of Goodwill of Business or Profession has been amended to provide that • in case it is acquired from a previous owner, the cost would be the amount of purchase price paid. • in case

THE DCIT, CIR-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

gains would be determined in the prescribed manner. Rule 8AC has been prescribed for this purpose.  Section 55: Meaning of 'Cost of Acquisition' in case of Goodwill of Business or Profession has been amended to provide that • in case it is acquired from a previous owner, the cost would be the amount of purchase price paid. • in case

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

gains would be determined in the prescribed manner. Rule 8AC has been prescribed for this purpose.  Section 55: Meaning of 'Cost of Acquisition' in case of Goodwill of Business or Profession has been amended to provide that • in case it is acquired from a previous owner, the cost would be the amount of purchase price paid. • in case

NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

gains would be determined in the prescribed manner. Rule 8AC has been prescribed for this purpose.  Section 55: Meaning of 'Cost of Acquisition' in case of Goodwill of Business or Profession has been amended to provide that • in case it is acquired from a previous owner, the cost would be the amount of purchase price paid. • in case

RANJITSINH KANUBHAI RATHOD,KALOL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC PRESENT JURIDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain. Though a search and seizure action was carried out in Kushal Group there was an independent inquiry and independent reasons given by the Assessing Officer for reopening assessee’s case. Therefore, the plea of the assessee that Section 153C should have been invoked does not come in picture. Therefore, Ground No. 2 and 3 of assessee’s appeal

RANJITSINH KANUBHAI RATHOD,KALOL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,NFAC PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain. Though a search and seizure action was carried out in Kushal Group there was an independent inquiry and independent reasons given by the Assessing Officer for reopening assessee’s case. Therefore, the plea of the assessee that Section 153C should have been invoked does not come in picture. Therefore, Ground No. 2 and 3 of assessee’s appeal

RANJITSINH KANUBHAI RATHOD,KALOL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC PRESENT JURIDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain. Though a search and seizure action was carried out in Kushal Group there was an independent inquiry and independent reasons given by the Assessing Officer for reopening assessee’s case. Therefore, the plea of the assessee that Section 153C should have been invoked does not come in picture. Therefore, Ground No. 2 and 3 of assessee’s appeal

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI RAMESH GOBARJI THAKOR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor Ward-3 Sector 11 Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar. Pan : Aespt 3446 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

capital gain. Similarly for A.Y. 2010-11, the appellant has made available the copy of the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s.147 of the Act in the case of Smt. Hansaben M. Patel which also reflected the addition of Rs.33,36,89,804/- being the aggregated amounts credited in the bank account with Indian Bank, Navrangpura Branch, Ahmedabad

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-\n13 & 2013-14 filed by the assessee are partly allowed, while the appeal of the assessee\nfor AY 2014-15 is allowed

gains would be determined in the\nprescribed manner. Rule 8AC has been prescribed for this purpose.\nSection 55: Meaning of 'Cost of Acquisition' in case of Goodwill of Business or\nProfession has been amended to provide that\nin case it is acquired from a previous owner, the cost would be the\namount of purchase price paid.\nin case

BHAVANJI JUGAJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

104, Anvaya Tower, Ward – 3(3)(1), Near Torrent Power Substation, Ahmedabad. Vejalpur, Vs. Ahmedabad – 380 051. [PAN – AKEPT 0862 H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Mahesh Chhajed, AR Revenue by Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 08.08.2024 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

gains derived from the activity of manufacturing. 24.2 On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the finding of the AO. 24.3 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 24.4 The learned AR before us submitted that the grant received by it has direct nexus and therefore

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

104, Prerna Tirth Part-II, Ward-3(1)(2), Jodpur Char Rasta, Satellite, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380015 [PAN No.AJBPS2299B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vivek Chavda, A.R. Respondent by: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2025 13.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the order passed

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,SATELLITE vs. WARD 3(1)(2) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

104, Prerna Tirth Part-II, Ward-3(1)(2), Jodpur Char Rasta, Satellite, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380015 [PAN No.AJBPS2299B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vivek Chavda, A.R. Respondent by: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2025 13.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the order passed

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

104, Prerna Tirth Part-II, Ward-3(1)(2), Jodpur Char Rasta, Satellite, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380015 [PAN No.AJBPS2299B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vivek Chavda, A.R. Respondent by: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2025 13.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the order passed