ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VISHWESHA CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 2211/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. 2 ITO vs. M/s. Vishwesha Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. 2. The solitary ground of appeal is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,55,30,800/- made by the Assessing

DIPAL PIYUSH PALKIWALA ,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.839/Ahd/2015 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3462/Ahd/2016 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala, Ito Ward-4(4) 27, Rivera Greens, 1St Floor, Vs Gokuldham Navjeevan Trust Building Sarkhej-Sanand Road, Sanathal, Ahmedabad-380014 Ahmedabad-382210 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Rita Dokania, Cit- Dr

capital gain in the body of assessment order which shows that the Ld. AO has not conducted the inquiry of the alleged transactions. In support of this contention reliance was also placed on following judgments: 1. Glass Lines Equipments Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2001) 119 taxman 813 (Guj) High Court of Gujarat 2. Babulal S. Solanki vs. ITO in ITANo.3493/Ahd/2016

DIPAL PIYUSH PALKIWALA ,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-4(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.839/Ahd/2015 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3462/Ahd/2016 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala, Ito Ward-4(4) 27, Rivera Greens, 1St Floor, Vs Gokuldham Navjeevan Trust Building Sarkhej-Sanand Road, Sanathal, Ahmedabad-380014 Ahmedabad-382210 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Rita Dokania, Cit- Dr

capital gain in the body of assessment order which shows that the Ld. AO has not conducted the inquiry of the alleged transactions. In support of this contention reliance was also placed on following judgments: 1. Glass Lines Equipments Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2001) 119 taxman 813 (Guj) High Court of Gujarat 2. Babulal S. Solanki vs. ITO in ITANo.3493/Ahd/2016

SHRI NANDKISHORE S. SODHAN(HUF),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 994/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Nandkishore S. Shodhan Ito, Ward-5(2)(3) (Huf) Vs Ahmedabad. D/11-12, Silver Arc Kavi Nanalal Marg Ellisbridge Pan : Aadhs 4064 F

capital gain account scheme. In support of the claim, assessee had furnished xerox copy of the Term Deposit receipt dated 22.03.2011 with Bank of Baroda. From the copy of receipt, it appeared that the Assessee had made fixed deposit (term deposit) on 22/03/2011 for a period of one year and maturity date being on 22/03/2012. From the provisions of section

SHRI SANJAY RAMANLAL BHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), NOW WARD-5(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

Section 144A itself, may please be deleted. 2.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad-5, Ahmedabad has grossly erred in confirming the action of the AO in making addition for an amount of Rs.85,00,658/- on account of short term capital gain

SHRI SARDAR (MEHSANA) OWNERS ASSOCIATION,,MEHSANA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) (Through Virtual Court)

Capital Gain on sale of N.A, land sold during the year under consideration. finalized the regular assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act as per is order dated 10/11/2010. A copy of the same is enclosed for ready reference, (Ane.3) Thus, there is no failure on the part of the assessee to submit necessary details for the assessment year under

DCIT, CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. OZONE INDIA LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

capital gain tax does not arise.' The Honourable Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Makers Development Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT [40 ITD 185] has held that where the stock in trade was revalued on amalgamation and acquired by the amalgamated company at higher value, in absence of any specific provision of tax, there will

RASNA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, -3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt.Year 2015-16

capital and non application of mind by the AO. 17. In view of the above, I am of the view that the assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 09/11/2017 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and is squarely covered under the Explanation