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

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

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

gains under section 45 of the Act, and distribution of new shares allotted by Sterling as being distributed by the assessee to its shareholders as dividend under section 2(22) of the Act. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR submitted as under:- • the assessee has not transferred the treasury undertaking

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 under section 45 of the Act, and distribution of new shares allotted by Sterling as being distributed by the assessee to its shareholders as dividend under section 2(22) of the Act. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR submitted as under:- • the assessee has not transferred the treasury undertaking

DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

capital gain on sale of 80,00,000 shares donated to\nthe assessee trust, was avoided by the trustee by making this\narrangement, was not denied. In view of this fact, the Ld. CIT(A) had\nrightly invoked the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act to deny the\nclaim of exemption under Section 11

SANDEEP MOHANRAJ SINGHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE4(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

capital gain on sale of 80,00,000 shares donated to the assessee trust, was avoided by the trustee by making this arrangement, was not denied. In view of this fact, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly invoked the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act to deny the claim of exemption under Section 11

ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

capital gain on sale of 80,00,000 shares donated to\nthe assessee trust, was avoided by the trustee by making this\narrangement, was not denied. In view of this fact, the Ld. CIT(A) had\nrightly invoked the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act to deny the\nclaim of exemption under Section 11

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT STATE BOARD OF SCHOOL TEXT BOOK, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, both the M

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO by invoking the provisions of section 11(4) of the Act in the assessment order without appreciating the fact since assessee has not bifurcated its income under the head "Profit and Gains of business or profession

DCIT (EXMP) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT STATE BOARD OF SCHOOL TEXT BOOK, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, both the M

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO by invoking the provisions of section 11(4) of the Act in the assessment order without appreciating the fact since assessee has not bifurcated its income under the head "Profit and Gains of business or profession

DCIT (EXMP) CIRCLE-1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT STATE BOARD OF SCHOOL TEXT BOOK, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, both the M

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO by invoking the provisions of section 11(4) of the Act in the assessment order without appreciating the fact since assessee has not bifurcated its income under the head "Profit and Gains of business or profession

DCIT(E), CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT STATE BOARD OF SCHOOL TEXT BOOK, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, both the M

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO by invoking the provisions of section 11(4) of the Act in the assessment order without appreciating the fact since assessee has not bifurcated its income under the head "Profit and Gains of business or profession

SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

11. We find ourselves in agreement with the case made out by the assessee before the lower authorities as noted above. Section 54B(2) of the Act enjoins that the capital gain

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

capital expenditure as an application of income under section 11 of the Act. 6. The Ld.Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, relied on the order of the AO and stated that extrapolation is legal when there is information available to rely upon with evidence. He further stated that there are circumstances to prove that the assessee trust was involved

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

capital expenditure as an application of income under section 11 of the Act. 6. The Ld.Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, relied on the order of the AO and stated that extrapolation is legal when there is information available to rely upon with evidence. He further stated that there are circumstances to prove that the assessee trust was involved

PARUL UNIVERSITY,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT,EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

capital expenditure as an application of income under section 11 of the Act. 6. The Ld.Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, relied on the order of the AO and stated that extrapolation is legal when there is information available to rely upon with evidence. He further stated that there are circumstances to prove that the assessee trust was involved

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

capital expenditure as an application of income under section 11 of the Act. 6. The Ld.Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, relied on the order of the AO and stated that extrapolation is legal when there is information available to rely upon with evidence. He further stated that there are circumstances to prove that the assessee trust was involved