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

SMT. NIMA SOMABHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1301/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2012 Smt. Nima Somabhai Patel, Income-Tax Officer, 13, Shubhash Society, Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), B/H. Ishwar Bhuvan, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Acmpp1832B

158, 167 during the year. He also mistakenly offered short term capital gain on the same. But on realization of mistake committed by him, he revised the return of income which was accepted by the DCIT, circle 4(1)(1) while finalizing assessment under section

KUM. NALINI SURRENDRABHAI PATEL,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain in Flat No.304, Suramiya Apartments, Vadodara. The above return was transferred to ITO(International Taxation), Baroda. After issuance of notice under section 142(1) calling for various details, the returned income was accepted and claim of deduction under section 54 and 54F has been accepted in the case of the assessee’s brother, who was owning 50% share

SHRI VINIT C. PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal is allowed

capital gain is justified. The Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158) has held that even if the assessee makes an incorrect claim in law, same cannot be stated that the assessee has concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Clause (c) of section

POPULAR ESTATE MANAGEMENT LTD.,(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS PIONEER TECHNOPARK LTD),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2703/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13) Popular Estate Management The Dcit बनाम/ Ltd. Circle-3(1)(1) Vs. (Previously Known As Pioneer Ahmedabad Technopark Ltd.) 81, New York Tower – A Opp. Muktidham Derasar Sg Highway Thaltej Cross Road Ahmedabad -380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm 0617 P .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Dhiren Shah & Shri Nupur Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Subhas Bain Cit-Dr

section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, “Right to Sue” is not a property and thereby it is not a “Capital Asset” and as a consequence, impugned receipt of Rs.18,02,53,000/- received as compensation/damages for relinquishment of right to sue in the Courts of law is a “capital receipt” in the hands of the appellant company

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

capital gains deserves to be deleted. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee on the quantum issue is allowed. 11. As regards the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, once the quantum addition itself stands deleted, the foundation for the penalty automatically collapses. Moreover, the assessee had furnished full particulars of income, including a valuation report prepared

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

capital gains deserves to be deleted. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee on the quantum issue is allowed. 11. As regards the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, once the quantum addition itself stands deleted, the foundation for the penalty automatically collapses. Moreover, the assessee had furnished full particulars of income, including a valuation report prepared

SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gain arising from sale of residential house property • Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim holding that assessee, being a company, was not entitled to claim deduction under section 54 - He also passed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for raising a patently false claim of deduction - Whether, on facts, Impugned penalty order did not require any interference

BHOJISON INFREASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2449/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, is not a property and therefore it is not a "Capital Asset" and as a consequence, impugned receipt of Rs. 2,47,03,600/- received as compensation / damages for relinquishment of right to sue in the Courts of law would only be a capital receipt in the hands of the appellant

BHUPENDRABHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, ANAND

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

capital gains in accordance with Section 50C\nbased on the stamp duty valuation. Since the assessee did not produce any\nmaterial to substantiate his claim or contest the findings of the Assessing Officer,\nthe CIT(A) found no reason to interfere with the assessment order. Accordingly,\nthe CIT(A) upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed\nthe

THE ACIT, ,MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA vs. SHRI MAULIKKUMAR MANILAL PATEL, MEHSANA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2055/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 The A.C.I.T., Shri Maulikkumar Manilal Patel, Mehsana Circle, Vs. Opp. Umiya Complex, Mehsana. Apollo Compound, Highway, Mehsana-384002. Pan: Abxpp3020D

capital gain which is exempted u/s 10(38) but an income chargeable to tax which is not disputed by either party. The “the Ld. CIT(A)” following the contention of the assessee that the assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income and relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro

THE ACIT, ,MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA vs. SHRI MANANKUMAR MANILAL PATEL, MEHSANA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2055/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 The A.C.I.T., Shri Maulikkumar Manilal Patel, Mehsana Circle, Vs. Opp. Umiya Complex, Mehsana. Apollo Compound, Highway, Mehsana-384002. Pan: Abxpp3020D

capital gain which is exempted u/s 10(38) but an income chargeable to tax which is not disputed by either party. The “the Ld. CIT(A)” following the contention of the assessee that the assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income and relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro

PRADIPSINH KARANSINH THAKOR,VADODARA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed) [Through Virtual Court]

capital gains. The burden cast upon the appellant by the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) can be said to have been discharged by the appellant. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1285 & 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & Ita No.1396 & 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1327 & 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1414 & 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. Torrent House Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench

section (5) of Section 80-IA. In this case, the question that arose for consideration ITA.Nos.1285/Ahd/2017 & 7 others A.Y.2009-10 38 before this Court related to computation of the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80-E, as it then existed, after setting off the loss incurred by the assessee in the manufacture of alloy steels. Section

THE ACIT, PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE,, GODHRA vs. MS. GRISHMABEN M. SOLANKI,, PANCHMAHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Years : 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Ms. Grishmaben M. Solanki, Income-Tax, Vs Rajmahal Road, Devgarh Baria, Panchmahal Circle, Panchmahal, Gujarat-389380 Godhra Pan : Cyops 3860 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. Dr Assessee By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Vadodara (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 20.09.2017 Whereby He Cancelled The Penalty Of Rs.56,56,420/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short).

Capital Gain. The A.O. observed that the assessee was in agreement with the valuation and consequent addition on account of LTCG. By agreeing to the additions the assessee is not absolved form its culpability and as per IT Act ACIT Vs. Grishmaben M. Solanki AY : 2012-13 3 mens-rea is not required to be proved by the Revenue. Hence

THE DCITGANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

gain income from Gujarat Venture Capital Fund for Rs.3,61,67,899/- to tax. 47.4 Similarly the dividend income from the Gujarat Venture Capital Fund is not exempt from the provision of income tax Act. 47.5 In view of above the assessee contended that only net investment should have been taken for the purpose of disallowances. 47.6 Without prejudice

M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT.,GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

gain income from Gujarat Venture Capital Fund for Rs.3,61,67,899/- to tax. 47.4 Similarly the dividend income from the Gujarat Venture Capital Fund is not exempt from the provision of income tax Act. 47.5 In view of above the assessee contended that only net investment should have been taken for the purpose of disallowances. 47.6 Without prejudice