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

capital gains tax by virtue of various clauses forming a part of Section 47 of the IT Act subjected to the applications of provisions of Section 2(19AA) of the Act. It is also settled position of law that the scheme of demerger once approved by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, it cannot be re-visited by any statutory

SHRI VIKAS NARAYAN BADDI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2012-13

2 years. This basic condition remaining, assesses can claim exemption by depositing the unutilised amount in a capital gain account scheme of Banks by the due date of filing return of income of the year in which the gain accrues, subject to its actual utilization for the stated purpose within the stipulated time, failing which the exemption earlier granted

SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. I.T.A No. 324/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 Shri Jignesh Jaysukhlal Ghiya. vs. DCIT 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 672 days in filing the above appeal by the assessee. The assessee

JECHINS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED (IN LIQN.),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

2,31,67,620/- has sought to be determined and the show cause was, therefore, issued to the assessee in this regard. Finally the determination of Short Term Capital Gain was made considering the transfer being made in the F.Y. 2011-12 as per Section

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2015), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(5), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2015), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(5), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2015), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(5), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2015), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(5), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2015), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(5), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2015), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(5), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section

M/S. CHANDAN INFRATECH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

gain instead of business income, calls for no interference. 12 It is further noticed the CBDT has come up with subsequent Circular No. 6 of 2016 dated 29.02.2016 which reads as under: Circular No. 6 of 2016 dated 29.2.2016 which will govern the field. The said Circular reads as under: "Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

AARK INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

31,527/- for interest on payment of TDS u/s 40(a)(ii) of the Act? 5. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making disallowance of Rs. 17,790/- for penalty expenses? 6. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI JIGAR JASHWANTLAL SHAH, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

gained' "qualitatively" with substantial controlling interest of 53.22% in AY 13-14 as compared to 27.90% in immediately preceding year AY 12-13 and 'quantitatively' with Rs.4,90,00,000 to be charged as income as per section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 4,90,00,000/- received by way disproportionate allotment of shares

SHRI JIGAR JASHWANTLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

gained' "qualitatively" with substantial controlling interest of 53.22% in AY 13-14 as compared to 27.90% in immediately preceding year AY 12-13 and 'quantitatively' with Rs.4,90,00,000 to be charged as income as per section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 4,90,00,000/- received by way disproportionate allotment of shares

AJAY REGHUBHAI BHARWAD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

2. ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Ahd/2020 are filed by the Assessee Sri. Ajay Reghubhai Bharwad as against separate appellate orders both dated 27.02.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Vadodara arising out of the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) of the Act, relating to the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. 3. Since

SHRI AJAY REGHUBHAI BHARWAD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

2. ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Ahd/2020 are filed by the Assessee Sri. Ajay Reghubhai Bharwad as against separate appellate orders both dated 27.02.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Vadodara arising out of the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) of the Act, relating to the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. 3. Since

SHRI PIYUSH M DOBARIYA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(4), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

2. ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Ahd/2020 are filed by the Assessee Sri. Ajay Reghubhai Bharwad as against separate appellate orders both dated 27.02.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Vadodara arising out of the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) of the Act, relating to the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. 3. Since

VINODCHANDRA T PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 457/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Vinodchandra T. Parikh, I.T.O, 31, Shail, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Opp. Madhusudan House, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

31,000.00 Less:- Exemption u/s 54EC Rs. 1,00,00,000.00 Exemption u/s 54 Rs. 4,05,20,000.00 Net Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 2,76,10,400.00 Asstt. Year 2013-14 3 4.1 From the above disclosure of income in the assessment year 2010-11, it was noted that the assessee besides claiming the exemption under section

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

gains of business or profession". (emphasis supplied) From the bare reading of this provision, it is evident that Section 58 of the Act has an overriding effect on the deduction as admissible under Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the provision of Section 40A of the Act has to be mandatorily applied while ITA Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 [Shri Girishbhai