GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

184/- and Rs.7,92,94,293/- in the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 29. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has captive power plants at Ranjinagar and Dahej. At Dahej, assessee has coal based captive power plant and gas based captive power plant. According to the AO, it did not claim deduction under section

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

184/- and Rs.7,92,94,293/- in the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 29. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has captive power plants at Ranjinagar and Dahej. At Dahej, assessee has coal based captive power plant and gas based captive power plant. According to the AO, it did not claim deduction under section

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

184/- and Rs.7,92,94,293/- in the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 29. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has captive power plants at Ranjinagar and Dahej. At Dahej, assessee has coal based captive power plant and gas based captive power plant. According to the AO, it did not claim deduction under section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

184/- and Rs.7,92,94,293/- in the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 29. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has captive power plants at Ranjinagar and Dahej. At Dahej, assessee has coal based captive power plant and gas based captive power plant. According to the AO, it did not claim deduction under section

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

184/- and Rs.7,92,94,293/- in the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 29. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has captive power plants at Ranjinagar and Dahej. At Dahej, assessee has coal based captive power plant and gas based captive power plant. According to the AO, it did not claim deduction under section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. PRATHAM INVESTMENTS,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 76/Ahd/2015 & 9/Ahd/2017 & I.T.A. No. 3087/Ahd/2016 (In I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016) & ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

gain on such conversion is in question. CIT(A) has appreciated the issue in correct legal perspective and in in sync with host of judgments holding the field in this regard. Therefore, there is no perceptible reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 7. Pertinently, we also take note of the clause (via) to Section

M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 76/Ahd/2015 & 9/Ahd/2017 & I.T.A. No. 3087/Ahd/2016 (In I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016) & ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

gain on such conversion is in question. CIT(A) has appreciated the issue in correct legal perspective and in in sync with host of judgments holding the field in this regard. Therefore, there is no perceptible reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 7. Pertinently, we also take note of the clause (via) to Section

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

184/- and Rs.7,92,94,293/- in the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 29. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has captive power plants at Ranjinagar and Dahej. At Dahej, assessee has coal based captive power plant and gas based captive power plant. According to the AO, it did not claim deduction under section

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

184/- and Rs.7,92,94,293/- in the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 29. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has captive power plants at Ranjinagar and Dahej. At Dahej, assessee has coal based captive power plant and gas based captive power plant. According to the AO, it did not claim deduction under section

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 CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CHANDRAKANT G PATEL, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

184 Tax/nan 460 (Punj. &Har.) it was held that "a wrong claim as business income of what should be treated as short term capital gains on the advice of the assessee's Counsel, could not be treated as an instance of deliberate default. In the case of Chandra Pal Bagga (supra) the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that

UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Unimed Technologies Limited Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Survey No.22 & 22, Vs. Vadodara. Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B Asstt.Year : 2016-17 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Unimed Technologies Limited Vadodara. Vs. Survey No.22 & 22, Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

5. Aggrieved by the relief granted, the Revenue has filed appeal in ITA No. 632/Ahd/2024 raising the following grounds: 1. Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.31,96,245/- made on account of software expenditure holding it as allowable expenditure under section

SHRI LAXMANBHAI JIVRAJBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 421/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 ) बनाम/ Laxmanbhai Jivrajbhai Patel The Dcit M/S.Shree Krishna Vijay Saw Circle-5(3) Vs. Mills Ahmedabad Lati Gbazar Zone-3 Geeta Mandir Ahmedabad-380 022 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abhpp 3999 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.J. Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Nilam Das Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 08/05/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 17/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–5, Ahmedabad [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cit(A)-5/Dcit Cir.5(3)/10530/2017-18 Dated 08/12/2017 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 16/02/2016 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- Laxmanbhai Jivrajbhai Patel Vs.Dcit Asst.Year - 2013-14 1. The Cit(Appeals) Erred In Not Granting Deduction Of Rs.94,90,000/- Paid Towards Cancellation Of Banakhat While Computing The Short Term Capital Gains, Which Arose On Sale Of Agricultural Land. The Appellant Reserves Its Right To Add, Amend, Alter Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Stated Hereinabove Either Before Or At The Time Of Hearing. The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Not Granting The Deduction Amounting To Rs. 94,90,000/- Paid Towards Cancellation Of Banakhat Against The Income Under The Head Capital Gain.

Capital Gain (in short STCG) at Rs. 12,91,243/- after deducting the cost of acquisition amounting to Rs. 1,39,43,995/- against the sale consideration. On the question by the AO, the assessee submitted as detailed under: Laxmanbhai Jivrajbhai Patel vs.DCIT Asst.Year - 2013-14 1. That the agricultural land was purchased along with other four co- owners

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, RACE COURSE vs. UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, HALOL

Accordingly dismissed.\n18.9 Based on the findings and conclusions set out hereinabove, the\nappeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by\nthe assessee is partly allowed

5. The Appellant, to comply with these regulatory requirements, has taken\nassistance of professional consultants being Quality Executive Partners Inc,\nUSA that help in obtaining these approvals for Appellant's manufacturing\nfacility situated at Baska for a professional fee of Rs.1,88, 13, 146/-\n1. 6. The nature of consultancy fees is majorly towards on-site visit charges,\nreimbursements

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2015), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(5), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2015), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(5), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2015), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(5), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2015), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(5), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section