SUMIT H BHAGCHANDANI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2 (Bombay)/[2016] 242 Taxman 189 (Bombay)/[2016] 387 ITR 421 (Bombay)/[2016] 290 CTR 496 (Bombay)[18-08-2016] has held that where assessee had filed return of income and entire amount which was subjected to capital gain tax had not been utilized for purpose of construction of new house, nor were unutilized amounts deposited in notified Bank Accounts

SHRI AMBALAL SOMABHAI (KUMBHAR) PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 315/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Ambalal Somabhai (Kumbhar) Prajapati Ito, Ward-7(1)(2) 1, Devi Annapurna Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Gurudwara, B/H. West & Park Thaltej, Bodakdev Ahmedabad 380058. Pan : Abgpk 5078 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.Dr

capital gain under section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act. In his second fold of contention, he submitted that reference under section 55A to the DVO for ascertaining value of land as on 1.4.1981 could only be made if the valuation adopted by the assessee is less than the fair market value. Here the ld.AO wants to reduce

SHRI ALPESH NAVINBHAI BAROT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

2 of 6 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 31.03.2017 declaring income of Rs.25,37,500/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had sold a non-agricultural land

SHANTABEN PARASMAL JAIN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shantaben Parasmal Jain, Vs. Dcit, 27, Vijay Society, Cir – 3(1), New Khanderao Road., Vadodara. Baroda. Pan No. Abwpj 8597 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri S. N. Dev, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings & Therefore The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Is Required To Be Quashed. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Disallowance Of Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 87,57,789/- As Exempt Income & Adding Back To The Total Income Of The Appellant & Therefore The Learned Ao Should Be Directed To Allow The Claim Of Exempt Income. 3. That The Appellant Craves Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter & Delete Any Grounds Of Appeal Before The Final Hearing.”

2. In pursuance to the request for providing the reasons for the reassessment through assessee's letter dated 1/7/2015, the ld. AO has provided the reasons for the reassessment on 27/1/2016 i.e. at the fag end of the passing of the assessment order on 11/3/2016. As per the direction Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sahakari Khand

SHRI MANISH AMBALAL PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(4), VADODARA

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2011-12 Shri Manish Ambalal Patel Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4) 5, Jignesh Vedashraya Bungalows Vadodara. Iscon Temple Road B/H. Mother’S School, Gotri Road Vadodara. Pan : Aokpp 6108 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-5, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 3.10.2019 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2011-12. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee, Shri Bandish Soparkar, Filed An Application Before Us Stating That He Had Instructions From The Assessee To No-Longer Represent Him. Accordingly, He Sought Withdrawal Of His Letter Of Authority Issued By The Assessee In His Name In The Present Case. The Same Was Permitted. 2 3. Further, We Have Noted That Submissions In Writing Were Filed Before The Bench On 31.5.2022, On The Basis Of Which Matter Was Proceeded To Be Heard With In The Absence Of Any Other Communication From The Assessee .

capital asset within meaning of the section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it is situated outside the specified limits of 8 kms. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in disallowing the payment made to farmers u/s.40A(3) without considering the facts of the case that it is not a business income but gain from the sale

K.P. WOVEN PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 K.P. Woven Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O., 13-B, Navbharat Society, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2) Usmanpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380013. Pan: Aaeck6307M

gain made on sale- of assets or addition of capital only. There cannot be any isolated increase in working capital without the- corresponding, increase in liability either long term or short term, in fact, in the case under consideration, the assessee company presented a fabricated and a masked picture under the permitted valuation rule but providing a hypothetical figure, which

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SABARKANTHA CIRCLE,, HIMATNAGAR vs. THE SABARKANTHA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1905/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Sabarkantha Circle Vs. Sabarkantha District Co-Op. Himatnagar. Milk Producers Union Ltd. Sabar Dairy, Sub Post Boriya Himatnagar 383 006. Pan : Aaaas 5265 L

290/-. 14. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has made addition to its plant & machinery which is eligible for grant of additional depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. This plant & machinery was used for less than 180 days in the preceding year. The assessee claimed that the additional depreciation for remaining period

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI MAYUR MUKUNDBHAI DESAI,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh

gain only instead of business income treated by the Assessing Officer ignoring the fact! that Assessee was 2 engaged in both F&O and cash segment of equity market utilizing interest bearing borrowed fund. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad ought to have upheld the order

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

gains of the subsidiary company. Whether the assessee was allotted these shares or not, the assessee was the only shareholder of the subsidiary company and beneficial owner of all the earnings and all the assets of the company. Non allotment of these shares, during the period of payment of share application money till the actual date of allotment

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

gains of the subsidiary company. Whether the assessee was allotted these shares or not, the assessee was the only shareholder of the subsidiary company and beneficial owner of all the earnings and all the assets of the company. Non allotment of these shares, during the period of payment of share application money till the actual date of allotment

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

gains of the subsidiary company. Whether the assessee was allotted these shares or not, the assessee was the only shareholder of the subsidiary company and beneficial owner of all the earnings and all the assets of the company. Non allotment of these shares, during the period of payment of share application money till the actual date of allotment

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

gains of the subsidiary company. Whether the assessee was allotted these shares or not, the assessee was the only shareholder of the subsidiary company and beneficial owner of all the earnings and all the assets of the company. Non allotment of these shares, during the period of payment of share application money till the actual date of allotment

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

290 and in the case of DOT vs Zydus Wellness Centre 76 Taxman 328, Ahmedabad. In the case of Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai has followed Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. In the present case under consideration it is an accepted proposition that goodwill is an intangible asset

JT. CTI (OSD), CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

290 and in the case of DOT vs Zydus Wellness Centre 76 Taxman 328, Ahmedabad. In the case of Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai has followed Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. In the present case under consideration it is an accepted proposition that goodwill is an intangible asset

NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

290 and in the case of DOT vs Zydus Wellness Centre 76 Taxman 328, Ahmedabad. In the case of Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai has followed Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. In the present case under consideration it is an accepted proposition that goodwill is an intangible asset

THE DCIT, CIR-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

290 and in the case of DOT vs Zydus Wellness Centre 76 Taxman 328, Ahmedabad. In the case of Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai has followed Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. In the present case under consideration it is an accepted proposition that goodwill is an intangible asset

SHRI CHITRANG M DAVE,VADODARA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

290/- under section 54 of the Act towards capital gain on the premise that the entire amount towards consideration of purchase of flat at Nandnavan Housing Co-operative Society has been paid by the assessee and merely because his father’s name has been inducted as joint- owner, the said claim cannot be denied. Accordingly, we delete the impugned disallowance

SHRI RUTUL M. DAVE,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, INT. TAXN.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

290/- under section 54 of the Act towards capital gain on the premise that the entire amount towards consideration of purchase of flat at Nandnavan Housing Co-operative Society has been paid by the assessee and merely because his father's name has been inducted as ITA No. 2722/Ahd/17 [Shri Rutul M Dave

DILIPKUMAR VITTHALDAS DESAI,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: The Tribunal Has Caused The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Assessee Enclosed The United States Passport Copy Of His Brother, Who Visited India In December 2023. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Stated In The Notarized Affidavit Thereby We Hereby Condone The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Above Appeals & Adjudicate The Cases On Merits.

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 83 & 84/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Dilipkumar Vitthaldas Desai vs. ITO 2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 87 days in filing these appeals by the assessee. The assessee explained by way of Notarized Affidavit