THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS SECURITIES LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHANDWALA INTEGRATED FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14

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.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

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

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

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.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

THA ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,, 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.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

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.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

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.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

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.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), , AHMEDABAD vs. SHAH INVESTORS HOME LTD,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

194C of the act. However, the assessing officer was of the view that tax should have been deducted u/s. 194J on the ground that the transactions charges paid to the stock exchange were in the nature of fees for technical services. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel has submitted that the Co-ordinate Benches

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHAH INVESTORS HOME LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross

194C of the act. However, the assessing officer was of the view that tax should have been deducted u/s. 194J on the ground that the transactions charges paid to the stock exchange were in the nature of fees for technical services. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel has submitted that the Co- I.T.A No. 3316/Ahd/2015

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BAJAJ HERBALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Capital Gain and Business Profit on sale of land ignoring the fact that the plot has been revalued at Rs. 6,60,66,000/- on form 3CD of audit report.” Ground No. 1:- 2. The assessee a manufacturer and exporter of cosmetic item filed its return of income on 29.09.2012 declaring income at Rs. NIL which was processed under Section

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

194C which proves that the assessee is a contractor and not owner of the projects and the appellant was 'not owner of the projects’. The AO has held that the company is neither developing or operating or maintaining AYs2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 Ajay Engineering Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1650/Ahd/2017 Ajay Protech Private Limited

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGG. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

194C which proves that the assessee is a contractor and not owner of the projects and the appellant was 'not owner of the projects’. The AO has held that the company is neither developing or operating or maintaining AYs2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 Ajay Engineering Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1650/Ahd/2017 Ajay Protech Private Limited