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

143(3) of the Act referred to above. Hence, the A. O. was not justified in enhancing such disallowance by reworking the disallowance from interest and administrative expenses. Further, it is noticed that the provisions of Rule 8D are applicable from A. Y. 2008-09 as held by Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce

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

143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under; I Assessment Year 2010-11 1.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming disallowance made

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

143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under; I Assessment Year 2010-11 1.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming disallowance made

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

143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under; I Assessment Year 2010-11 1.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming disallowance made

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

143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under; I Assessment Year 2010-11 1.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming disallowance made

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

143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under; I Assessment Year 2010-11 1.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming disallowance made

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

143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under; I Assessment Year 2010-11 1.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming disallowance made

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

143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under; I Assessment Year 2010-11 1.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming disallowance made

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

143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under; I Assessment Year 2010-11 1.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming disallowance made

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

2. The instant appeal has been filed by the Revenue with the following grounds: “i. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.25,46,06,987/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain & Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.3,26,02,919/-. ii. On the facts and circumstances of the case

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL ENGINEERING & GALVANIZERS,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

2. The instant appeal has been filed by the Revenue with the following grounds: “i. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.25,46,06,987/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain & Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.3,26,02,919/-. ii. On the facts and circumstances of the case

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL ENGINEERING & GALVANIZERS,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

2. The instant appeal has been filed by the Revenue with the following grounds: “i. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.25,46,06,987/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain & Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.3,26,02,919/-. ii. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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 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

SHRI CHAITANYA BANSIBHAI. NAGORI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

section 143(2) of the Act for examining the issues as detailed under: (i) Sale of property mismatch (ii) Mismatch in income/capital gain on sale of land or building (iii) Deduction claimed under the head capital

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

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2015-16. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and Non Resident Indian. For the Assessment Year I.T.A No. 1353/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 2 Smt. Rashidaben Taher Morawala vs. DCIT, Int.Taxa

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. HOTEL SAHAJ PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Capital Gain [STCG] on sale of building but the AO could have issued the notice under Section 143(2) and could

M/S. SURZLON GLOBAL SERVICES LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 67-68/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 M/S. Suzlon Global Services Limited, Principal Commissioner 5 Suzlon, Shrimali Society, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Near Shree Krishna Centre, Ahmedabad. Nr. Judges Bunglow Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aaics1406R

gains in the hands of shareholders of amalgamating company on transfer of shares of amalgamating company in the scheme of amalgamation under the provisions of section 47 (vii) of the Act. v. Cost of capital assets to be the same as in the hands of previous owner where capital assets became the assets of the successor as a result

SHRI ASHOKKUMAR KHIMRAJ,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1247/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Shri Ashokkumar Khimraj Ito, बनाम/ Prop. Ridhi Siddhi Ward – 3(1), Vs. Enterprises, 21, Shitalkunj Ahmedabad. Society, Rambaug Road, Ahmedabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afdpk 6404 N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Parin Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vinod Talwani, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

143(3) of the Act pertaining to the A.Y. 2005-06 vide order dated 16.10.2007. 6.2 The assessee has made all the investment in the IPO, and as such there was no investment by way of acquiring shares from the secondary market. Ashokkumar Khimraj vs. ITO A.Y. 2006-07 7. On the other hand, Learned DR vehemently supported the order