DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains under sections 45 and 48 necessarily requires substitution of cost with indexed cost (iii) there is no express bar in section 115JB excluding indexation (iv) denying indexation leads to taxation of unreal income, contrary to the real income theory recognised by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains under sections 45 and 48 necessarily requires substitution of cost with indexed cost (iii) there is no express bar in section 115JB excluding indexation (iv) denying indexation leads to taxation of unreal income, contrary to the real income theory recognised by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains under sections 45 and 48 necessarily requires substitution of cost with indexed cost (iii) there is no express bar in section 115JB excluding indexation (iv) denying indexation leads to taxation of unreal income, contrary to the real income theory recognised by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains under sections 45 and 48 necessarily requires substitution of cost with indexed cost (iii) there is no express bar in section 115JB excluding indexation (iv) denying indexation leads to taxation of unreal income, contrary to the real income theory recognised by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains under sections 45 and 48 necessarily requires substitution of cost with indexed cost (iii) there is no express bar in section 115JB excluding indexation (iv) denying indexation leads to taxation of unreal income, contrary to the real income theory recognised by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT , BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

capital gains under sections 45\nand 48 necessarily requires substitution of cost with indexed cost\n(iii) there is no express bar in section 115JB excluding\nindexation\n(iv) denying indexation leads to taxation of unreal income,\ncontrary to the real income theory recognised by the Supreme Court\nin CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

capital gains under sections 45\nand 48 necessarily requires substitution of cost with indexed cost\n(iii)\nthere is no express bar in section 115JB excluding\nindexation\n(iv)\ndenying indexation leads to taxation of unreal income,\ncontrary to the real income theory recognised by the Supreme Court\nin CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144

RAMSINHJI MERAJI VANZARA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

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

section 54B(2). 8. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The undisputed facts from the record are that:- (i) the purchase deed for the new agricultural land was executed on 14.08.2019, (ii) the cheques for the entire consideration were issued on the same date and (iii) the assessee maintained adequate

MAUNANG FARMS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),(NOW ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

144 r.w.s.147 of the Act. Maunang Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (Now ACIT) Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2– 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering the fact that reopening of the case of the appellant company under section 147 of the Act by the Ld.AO merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without

SANJAY JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-2015 Sanjay Jayantilal Shah Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 202/A, Shivalik 10 Vs. Vejalpur Opp: Sbi Zonal Office Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aktps 8891 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars. : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Year 2014–15, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Assessing Officer Or Ao"].

section 144 of the Act. 4.1 It was, however, submitted that notwithstanding the above, the matter on merits involves examination of genuineness of the claim of exempt Long Term Capital Gains

RAJNIKANT RAICHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 144 of the Act on the basis of material available on record. In absence of any supporting evidence for claim of exemption and due to the change in stand without any explanation, the Assessing Officer held that the entire amount of Rs. 40,32,000/- received from the transfer of “tenancy rights” was taxable as long-term capital gain

SACHINKUMAR PREMANANDBHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-14 Sachinkumar Premanandbhai Patel Ito, Ward-1 Nr.Old Post Office Vs. Anand. Bhalej Anand Umreth, Gujarat Pan : Auhpp 8057 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Sigh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025

Capital Gain, on the ground that no exemption under section 54 was claimed and that the income had escaped assessment. Various statutory notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) were issued, and in the absence of compliance, assessment was completed ex parte under section 144

HASMUKHLAL ISHVARLAL PATEL,PATAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PATAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Capital Gains" and added it back to the income of the assessee. The assessment was completed on ex-parte basis under section 144

HASMUKHLAL ISHVARLAL PATEL,PATAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PATAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Capital Gains" and added it back to the income of the assessee. The assessment was completed on ex-parte basis under section 144

MAHENDRABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(3)(2) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Mahendrabhai Patel Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) 51, Shivranjini Society Vs. Ahmedabad. Satellite, Azad Society So Ahmedabad. Pan : Awspp 5117 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Mehul B. Dhrangadhariya, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

section 144 r.w.s. 147, holding that the entire 50% share of the sale consideration, amounting to Rs.37,76,400/‑, was assessable as capital gain

ARVINDSINH ISHVARSINH VAGHELA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

capital gain tax on account of sale of a non-urban agriculture land as per Sec.2(14)(iii) and new asset being agriculture land purchased by him which entitled him to exemption u/s.548. 4.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the Id. NFAC ought not to have appreciated that the provision of sec.50C were not applicable in view

BHAVNA NACHIKETAN BAROT,VADODARA vs. ITO WARD - 1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2015-16

capital gain income is liable to be deleted. 6) On the facts and In the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the order dated 28.11.2024 as passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is bad in law since it dismisses the appeal on the reason of non-prosecution and does not adjudicate on the grounds

NITABEN RASIKBHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD- 1(3)(2) NOW WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.687/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Nitaben Rasikbhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Moti Khadki At Sisva, Vs. Ward-1(3)(2), Ta Borsad, Now Ward 1(3)(1), Anand-388540. Petlad.

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 7. Besides the above the Ld. AR also submitted that the land in dispute, being agriculture land, cannot be made subject to tax under the head capital gain