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

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

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

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 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

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

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

section, the original cost should be takes as the cost of acquisition while determining the income under the head capital gain. Now coming to the 2nd question arising for our consideration, what 95. should be the period of holding for computing the capital gain with respect to shares acquired by the assessee upon the conversion of both membership cards

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

section, the original cost should be takes as the cost of acquisition while determining the income under the head capital gain. Now coming to the 2nd question arising for our consideration, what 95. should be the period of holding for computing the capital gain with respect to shares acquired by the assessee upon the conversion of both membership cards

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

section, the original cost should be takes as the cost of acquisition while determining the income under the head capital gain. Now coming to the 2nd question arising for our consideration, what 95. should be the period of holding for computing the capital gain with respect to shares acquired by the assessee upon the conversion of both membership cards

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)

section 194J in respect of lease line charges after following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. reported in (2016) 383. In the light of the above facts and judicial findings, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue, therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue

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

section 194J in respect of lease line charges after following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. reported in (2016) 383. In the light of the above facts and judicial findings, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue, therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Wassem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2021/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Edelweiss Broking Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ (On Behalf Of Amalgamating Cricle-1(3), Vs. 1St Floor, B-109, Company, Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.) Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Nr. 801-804, 8Th Floor, Abhishree Panjrapole, Ambawadi, Avenue, Opp. Hanumanji Ahmedabad-380015 Temple, Nehrunagar, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce9421H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

194J of the Act.” In view of the above we hold that there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source. Consequently, the provisions of Section 40(a)( ia) were also not attracted and, therefore, the disallowance made was to be deleted. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), , AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD.(ON BEHALF OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Wassem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2021/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Edelweiss Broking Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ (On Behalf Of Amalgamating Cricle-1(3), Vs. 1St Floor, B-109, Company, Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.) Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Nr. 801-804, 8Th Floor, Abhishree Panjrapole, Ambawadi, Avenue, Opp. Hanumanji Ahmedabad-380015 Temple, Nehrunagar, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce9421H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

194J of the Act.” In view of the above we hold that there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source. Consequently, the provisions of Section 40(a)( ia) were also not attracted and, therefore, the disallowance made was to be deleted. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

M/S. SAKARLAL BALABHAI & COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sakarlal Balabhai & Co. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 1001/6, 10Th Floor, Ankush Apartment, Vs Ward 4(1)(1), 10Th Khetwadi Lane, Grant Road, Ahmedabad Mumbai-400004 Pan : Aadcs 0862 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bimlendu Bhusan, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A) In Short]” Dated 20.09.2019 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under:- “1. Learned Cit(A) Has Neither Discussed Anything Related To The Disallowance Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Nor Considered Any Grounds Related To That Raised By The Us For Which Actually Appeal Has Been Filed By The Appellant. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Claimed That The Appellant Is Involved In Only Investment Activity & Does Not Have Any Business Activity & We Do Not Agree With It.”

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or Profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profits and gains of Business and Profession’. A bare perusal of the section 37 of the Act shows that when an expenditure is laid out wholly

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2970/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 D.C.I.T., M/S Deloitee Haskins & Sells, Circle-1(2), Vs. 31-Nutan Bharat Society, Vadodara. Alkapuri, Baroda.

gained from DTTIPL. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 1,07,83,531/- without considering the fact that the assessee had not proved that the payments were not in nature of room

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, appeal I.T

194J or 194CoftheAct. 8.3. In the case of Chattisgarh State Electricity Board (supra) the Mumbai Tribunal has concluded as under: "Payment made by the assessee, a State Electricity Board, to PGCILfor transmission of power purchased by it from NTPC was made for the services of transmission of electricity and not for the use of transmission wires

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal I.T

194J or 194CoftheAct. 8.3. In the case of Chattisgarh State Electricity Board (supra) the Mumbai Tribunal has concluded as under: "Payment made by the assessee, a State Electricity Board, to PGCILfor transmission of power purchased by it from NTPC was made for the services of transmission of electricity and not for the use of transmission wires