M/S. VISHAL ENGINEERS & GALVANIZERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains under section 48 by treating fair market value of the asset on the date of transfer, does not arise. • CIT vs. Rita Mechanical Works 344 ITR 544 (P&H) 12

SMT. RASHIDABEN TAHER MORAWALA,GODHRA vs. THE DCIT, INT.-TAXA., BARODA

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

capital gain on 'Fair market value', hence out of the ambits of reference prescribed under section 55A [Para 12] Section

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

12. Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions made before ld. CIT(A) and submitted that in view of the provisions of Explanation (i) to section 194H read with section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, no TDS was required to be made on services related to security transaction. In this regard, ld. Counsel also referred to page

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

12. Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions made before ld. CIT(A) and submitted that in view of the provisions of Explanation (i) to section 194H read with section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, no TDS was required to be made on services related to security transaction. In this regard, ld. Counsel also referred to page

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

12. Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions made before ld. CIT(A) and submitted that in view of the provisions of Explanation (i) to section 194H read with section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, no TDS was required to be made on services related to security transaction. In this regard, ld. Counsel also referred to page

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

12. Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions made before ld. CIT(A) and submitted that in view of the provisions of Explanation (i) to section 194H read with section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, no TDS was required to be made on services related to security transaction. In this regard, ld. Counsel also referred to page

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS SECURITIES LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

12. Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions made before ld. CIT(A) and submitted that in view of the provisions of Explanation (i) to section 194H read with section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, no TDS was required to be made on services related to security transaction. In this regard, ld. Counsel also referred to page

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHANDWALA INTEGRATED FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

12. Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions made before ld. CIT(A) and submitted that in view of the provisions of Explanation (i) to section 194H read with section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, no TDS was required to be made on services related to security transaction. In this regard, ld. Counsel also referred to page

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

12. Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions made before ld. CIT(A) and submitted that in view of the provisions of Explanation (i) to section 194H read with section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, no TDS was required to be made on services related to security transaction. In this regard, ld. Counsel also referred to page

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

12. Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions made before ld. CIT(A) and submitted that in view of the provisions of Explanation (i) to section 194H read with section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, no TDS was required to be made on services related to security transaction. In this regard, ld. Counsel also referred to page

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

12. This ground raised by the Revenue relates to challenging the order of Ld.CIT(A) in allowing relief to the Assessee after rejecting the recomputation of the Long Term Capital Loss by the Assessing Officer at Rs.47,74,277/- as against claim of the assessee at Rs.8,20,72,056/-. 13. The Ld.DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue relied

SHRI VIKAS NARAYAN BADDI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2012-13

section, could have been done only in the year in which the three year period from date of capital gain expired. 12

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

THA ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT