JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- These cross appeals filed by the Assessee and the Revenue are directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax ITA Nos. 1184/Ahd/2018 & 1225/Ahd/2018 Assessee : Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (I) Ltd Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 2– (Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 09.03.2018 passed under Section

SARDAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD 3(1)(3),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2156 & 2157/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 Sardar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd Ito, ‘’B’’, Alankar Apartment, Ward 3(1)(3), Vs. Parkarwada, Dandia Bazar, Baroda. Vadodara. Pan: Aaabt2648D

D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the two order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Vadodara [CIT(A) in short] of even dated 31/07/2017 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here

SARDAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD 3(1)(3),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2156 & 2157/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 Sardar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd Ito, ‘’B’’, Alankar Apartment, Ward 3(1)(3), Vs. Parkarwada, Dandia Bazar, Baroda. Vadodara. Pan: Aaabt2648D

D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the two order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Vadodara [CIT(A) in short] of even dated 31/07/2017 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here

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

22,702/- for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15 respectively. In the result the ground No.3 raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2014-15 stands allowed. 35. Now we take up issue relating to gain/ loss from transactions of sale of shares and securities. This issue relates to Assessment Year

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

22,702/- for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15 respectively. In the result the ground No.3 raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2014-15 stands allowed. 35. Now we take up issue relating to gain/ loss from transactions of sale of shares and securities. This issue relates to Assessment Year

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

22,702/- for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15 respectively. In the result the ground No.3 raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2014-15 stands allowed. 35. Now we take up issue relating to gain/ loss from transactions of sale of shares and securities. This issue relates to Assessment Year

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

22,702/- for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15 respectively. In the result the ground No.3 raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2014-15 stands allowed. 35. Now we take up issue relating to gain/ loss from transactions of sale of shares and securities. This issue relates to Assessment Year

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

22,702/- for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15 respectively. In the result the ground No.3 raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2014-15 stands allowed. 35. Now we take up issue relating to gain/ loss from transactions of sale of shares and securities. This issue relates to Assessment Year

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

22,702/- for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15 respectively. In the result the ground No.3 raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2014-15 stands allowed. 35. Now we take up issue relating to gain/ loss from transactions of sale of shares and securities. This issue relates to Assessment Year

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

22,702/- for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15 respectively. In the result the ground No.3 raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2014-15 stands allowed. 35. Now we take up issue relating to gain/ loss from transactions of sale of shares and securities. This issue relates to Assessment Year

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

22,702/- for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15 respectively. In the result the ground No.3 raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2014-15 stands allowed. 35. Now we take up issue relating to gain/ loss from transactions of sale of shares and securities. This issue relates to Assessment Year

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL ENGINEERING & GALVANIZERS,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The first appeal and Cross Objection filed by the Revenue and assessee are directed against order dated 13.05.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XI, Ahmedabad under section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2011-12. ITA No. 2316/Ahd/2014

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL ENGINEERING & GALVANIZERS,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The first appeal and Cross Objection filed by the Revenue and assessee are directed against order dated 13.05.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XI, Ahmedabad under section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2011-12. ITA No. 2316/Ahd/2014

M/S. VISHAL ENGINEERS & GALVANIZERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The first appeal and Cross Objection filed by the Revenue and assessee are directed against order dated 13.05.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XI, Ahmedabad under section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2011-12. ITA No. 2316/Ahd/2014

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

22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot

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

22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot

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

22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot

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

22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot