THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Capital expenditures are often employed to improve operational efficiency, increase revenue in the long term, or make improvements to the existing assets of a company. Capital spending is different from other types of spending that focus on short-term operating expenses, such as overhead expenses or payments to suppliers and creditors. 115.2 Depreciation is used to expense the fixed asset

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Capital expenditures are often employed to improve operational efficiency, increase revenue in the long term, or make improvements to the existing assets of a company. Capital spending is different from other types of spending that focus on short-term operating expenses, such as overhead expenses or payments to suppliers and creditors. 115.2 Depreciation is used to expense the fixed asset

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Capital expenditures are often employed to improve operational efficiency, increase revenue in the long term, or make improvements to the existing assets of a company. Capital spending is different from other types of spending that focus on short-term operating expenses, such as overhead expenses or payments to suppliers and creditors. 115.2 Depreciation is used to expense the fixed asset

SHRI HARISHBHAI KESHAVLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-7,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1180/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

148 where two more parameters were included in deciding the issue discussed above. “i) whether the purchase and sale of shares has been made through borrowed funds and ii) whether the activity of purchase and sale of shares has been continued for more than one year. In this connection.” 2.4 Thus the AO in the light of the parameters given

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

148 3.68% 69.98% 6 2001-3000 10,76,50,664 41,986 11.75% 8173% 7 3001-4000 15,96,18,534 45,288 12.67% 94.40% 8 4001-5000 2,15,47,954 4,563 1.28% 95.68% 9 5001-7000 6,07,52,130 10,521 2.94% 98.62% 10 7001-10000 2

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

148 3.68% 69.98% 6 2001-3000 10,76,50,664 41,986 11.75% 8173% 7 3001-4000 15,96,18,534 45,288 12.67% 94.40% 8 4001-5000 2,15,47,954 4,563 1.28% 95.68% 9 5001-7000 6,07,52,130 10,521 2.94% 98.62% 10 7001-10000 2

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

148 3.68% 69.98% 6 2001-3000 10,76,50,664 41,986 11.75% 8173% 7 3001-4000 15,96,18,534 45,288 12.67% 94.40% 8 4001-5000 2,15,47,954 4,563 1.28% 95.68% 9 5001-7000 6,07,52,130 10,521 2.94% 98.62% 10 7001-10000 2

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

148 3.68% 69.98% 6 2001-3000 10,76,50,664 41,986 11.75% 8173% 7 3001-4000 15,96,18,534 45,288 12.67% 94.40% 8 4001-5000 2,15,47,954 4,563 1.28% 95.68% 9 5001-7000 6,07,52,130 10,521 2.94% 98.62% 10 7001-10000 2

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 have made inquiry. AO's failure to make inquiry under Section 143(2) does not entitle him to issue notice under Section 148

JECHINS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED (IN LIQN.),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

gain which arose from transfer of capital asset which could be brought to tax under Section 45 r.w.s 48 of the Act. While dealing with the matter the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as follows:- “19. It is also well-settled by this Court that the protection provided under Section 53A is only a shield

CHUDABHAI LAXMNABHAI DESAI,,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD -6(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

2. On verification of the details available with this office was noticed that you have sold urban land for Rs. 72,50,000/- with three others and did not shown capital gain in respect of the said transaction. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued which was duly served upon you by Speed Post. Thereafter, further notices were issued

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI JIGAR JASHWANTLAL SHAH, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

148 of the Act on the ground that aggregate FMV of shares allotted to the assessee at Rs. 5,10,00,000/- far exceeded the consideration amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- paid for receipt of shares and as per provisions of section 56(2) of the Act, the same should have been taxed in the hands of the assessee.Accordingly

SHRI JIGAR JASHWANTLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

148 of the Act on the ground that aggregate FMV of shares allotted to the assessee at Rs. 5,10,00,000/- far exceeded the consideration amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- paid for receipt of shares and as per provisions of section 56(2) of the Act, the same should have been taxed in the hands of the assessee.Accordingly

AURA SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

capital gains on the basis that the assessee might have gained or could have gained a higher price which in fact was not received. Reference can be also made to CITv. Godavari Corpn. Ltd. [1993] 68 Taxman 344/200 ITR 567 (SC) and judgments of this Court in CIT v. Dinesh Jain, HUF [2012] 25 taxmann.com 550/211 Taxman

AURA SECURITIES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

capital gains on the basis that the assessee might have gained or could have gained a higher price which in fact was not received. Reference can be also made to CITv. Godavari Corpn. Ltd. [1993] 68 Taxman 344/200 ITR 567 (SC) and judgments of this Court in CIT v. Dinesh Jain, HUF [2012] 25 taxmann.com 550/211 Taxman

SHRI ANILBHAI HIRALAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gain on sale of shares of shell companies or the assessee was engaged in systemic evasion of taxes. Thereafter, the AO recorded the reason to believe that income has been escaped to the extent of sale amount of shares. However in the A.Y. 2008-09 18 case of appellant assessee before us, the AO has not applied his mind

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain. (ii) Scrutiny of records, it was noticed from the assets of the balance sheet for AY 2012- 13 that there was an agricultural land amounting to Rs. 1.73,25,167 (including land purchased during the year R.S. no. 665/P/l for Rs. 15.54,000) under the head investment. However, the balance sheet of the previous 'year

NITIN BHAILALBHAI THAKKAR,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nitin Bhailalbhai Thakkar, The Acit, C/O. Jagdish Foods Pvt. Ltd., Vs Circle 1(1)(2), Ramji Mandir Pole, Kothi Road, Baroda Raopura, Vadodara-390001 Pan : Abapt 7939 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. M.M. Garg, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/10/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2022

2 response to the said notice, a reply was filed by the assessee stating that the return filed by him originally on 02.07.2010 may be treated as return filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, a mistake in computing exemption under Section 54F of the Act, as claimed

ITO, WARD-3(3)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. RAMILABEN G. PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Years : 2012-13 Ramilaben Ganpatbhai Patel, The Income-Tax Officer, 5, Rajsurya Bungalows, Vs Ward 3(3)(4), Nr. Fun Republic, Ramdevnagar, Ahmedabad Satellite, Ahmedabad-380051 Pan : Aaspp 2683 G Assessment Years : 2012-13 The Income-Tax Officer, Ramilaben Ganpatbhai Patel, Ward 3(3)(4), Vs 5, Rajsurya Bungalows, Ahmedabad Nr. Fun Republic, Ramdevnagar, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380051 Pan : Aaspp 2683 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.C. Shah, Ar & Shri Bhadresh Gandhakwala, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26/04/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

capital gain arising from the said sale was not offered to tax. A notice under Section 148 of the Act accordingly was issued by the Assessing Officer on 24.04.2014 after recording the reasons. Thereafter, a notice under Section 143(2