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

VI & CIT(Appeals)-10 (in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], Ahmedabad dated 28.1.2014, 13.08,2014, 1.02.2016, 26.10.2016 & 30.06.2017 respectively which are arising out of the order u/s 143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised

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

VI & CIT(Appeals)-10 (in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], Ahmedabad dated 28.1.2014, 13.08,2014, 1.02.2016, 26.10.2016 & 30.06.2017 respectively which are arising out of the order u/s 143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised

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

VI & CIT(Appeals)-10 (in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], Ahmedabad dated 28.1.2014, 13.08,2014, 1.02.2016, 26.10.2016 & 30.06.2017 respectively which are arising out of the order u/s 143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised

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

VI & CIT(Appeals)-10 (in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], Ahmedabad dated 28.1.2014, 13.08,2014, 1.02.2016, 26.10.2016 & 30.06.2017 respectively which are arising out of the order u/s 143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised

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

VI & CIT(Appeals)-10 (in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], Ahmedabad dated 28.1.2014, 13.08,2014, 1.02.2016, 26.10.2016 & 30.06.2017 respectively which are arising out of the order u/s 143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised

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

VI & CIT(Appeals)-10 (in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], Ahmedabad dated 28.1.2014, 13.08,2014, 1.02.2016, 26.10.2016 & 30.06.2017 respectively which are arising out of the order u/s 143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised

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

VI & CIT(Appeals)-10 (in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], Ahmedabad dated 28.1.2014, 13.08,2014, 1.02.2016, 26.10.2016 & 30.06.2017 respectively which are arising out of the order u/s 143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised

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

24,536/-, held by treasury segment back to Sterling through the arrangement approved by hon’ble High Court and the shareholders of the appellant received 2,68,01,557 shares worth of Rs. 61,91,15,966/- of Sterling in return. I agree with the stand taken by the A.O and with due regards and respect to the order

RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD.,),HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

24,536/-, held by treasury segment back to Sterling through the arrangement approved by hon’ble High Court and the shareholders of the appellant received 2,68,01,557 shares worth of Rs. 61,91,15,966/- of Sterling in return. I agree with the stand taken by the A.O and with due regards and respect to the order

SCARLETT DESIGNS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

24,65,291 The Application u/s 154 has been rightly rejected by the ITO Ward 8(1) Ahmedabad, Accordingly, the AO’s order u/s 154 is confirmed. In the result, appeal is dismissed.” By virtue of the amendment to S.74 w.e.f. 01.04.03, "ring-fencing" has been done by the Legislature qua "set-off of loss under the head "capital gains

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

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 be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted by the first

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

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 be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted by the first

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

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 be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted by the first

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

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 be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted by the first

M/S. ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

vi) of section 2(24) states that income includes any capital gains chargeable under section 45. Therefore, once capital gains

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

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 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