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 45, of the Income-tax Act, 1061 - Business income - Chargeable as - Assessment year 2005-06 - During relevant assessment year, assessee filed her return showing income from sale and purchase of shares under head 'Capital Gains' - Assessing Officer did not agree with treatment given by assessee and treated said income as business income - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) partly accepted assessee

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-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 45, of the Income-tax Act, 1061 - Business income - Chargeable as - Assessment year 2005-06 - During relevant assessment year, assessee filed her return showing income from sale and purchase of shares under head 'Capital Gains' - Assessing Officer did not agree with treatment given by assessee and treated said income as business income - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) partly accepted assessee

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 45, of the Income-tax Act, 1061 - Business income - Chargeable as - Assessment year 2005-06 - During relevant assessment year, assessee filed her return showing income from sale and purchase of shares under head 'Capital Gains' - Assessing Officer did not agree with treatment given by assessee and treated said income as business income - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) partly accepted assessee

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, 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 45, of the Income-tax Act, 1061 - Business income - Chargeable as - Assessment year 2005-06 - During relevant assessment year, assessee filed her return showing income from sale and purchase of shares under head 'Capital Gains' - Assessing Officer did not agree with treatment given by assessee and treated said income as business income - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) partly accepted assessee

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-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 45, of the Income-tax Act, 1061 - Business income - Chargeable as - Assessment year 2005-06 - During relevant assessment year, assessee filed her return showing income from sale and purchase of shares under head 'Capital Gains' - Assessing Officer did not agree with treatment given by assessee and treated said income as business income - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) partly accepted assessee

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. PRATHAM INVESTMENTS,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 76/Ahd/2015 & 9/Ahd/2017 & I.T.A. No. 3087/Ahd/2016 (In I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016) & ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

capital gains". 4. The assessment order does not mention the date on which the shares in question were purchased. We also note that the assessment order records that the assessee had converted and transferred the shares in question under the head ITA No. 747/Ahd/14 [M/s. Pratham Investments vs. DC IT] A.Y. 2005-06 - 10 – "investment" on 1st April, 2004. This

M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 76/Ahd/2015 & 9/Ahd/2017 & I.T.A. No. 3087/Ahd/2016 (In I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016) & ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

capital gains". 4. The assessment order does not mention the date on which the shares in question were purchased. We also note that the assessment order records that the assessee had converted and transferred the shares in question under the head ITA No. 747/Ahd/14 [M/s. Pratham Investments vs. DC IT] A.Y. 2005-06 - 10 – "investment" on 1st April, 2004. This

SHRI ASHISH TANDON, ,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

200 ITR 483 (SC)] wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows: The question then arises under which head of income should the said income be placed. Inasmuch as the assessee is not an employee of Ballarpur, which made the payment, it cannot be brought within the purview of section 17 of the Act. It must necessarily be placed

MRS. SHIKHA SANJAYA SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

200/- exempt u/s 10(38) and did not allow carry forward. On appeal by assessee, the Hon’ble ITAT examined the scheme of Income-tax Act extensively and allowed the claim of assesse by concluding thus: “In the light of the above discussion, we are not in agreement with the view of the revenue that long term capital loss

HARSHADKUMAR AMRUTLAL PATEL,MEHSANA vs. DCIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 361/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

capital gains tax under section 45. [Para 5] It is an undisputed fact that the assessee had purchased agricultural land on 16-8-2006 while he was still a nonresident Indian and thereafter he did not do any agricultural operations on that land. After retaining it for about two years, he sold it to T, In the meanwhile

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI KAILASH RAMAVATAR GOENKA, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital gains year-wise as computed and directed by the CIT(A). B. Grounds relating to Addition in respect of Internal Circulation of Funds and Unaccounted Receipts and Payments 15. The issue involved under these grounds pertain to unaccounted cash receipts and unaccounted cash payments, as reflected in the seized documents during the search operation. The AO made substantial additions

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

section 10(38), in respect of the long term capital gain of Rs 68,27,758, and that he did not set off the same against the long term capital loss brought forward to ITA Nos.3108/A/2010, 2609/A/2012, 671/A/2014, 243/A/2015 & 370/A/2016 AYs: 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page 6 of 31 the extent

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

section 10(38), in respect of the long term capital gain of Rs 68,27,758, and that he did not set off the same against the long term capital loss brought forward to ITA Nos.3108/A/2010, 2609/A/2012, 671/A/2014, 243/A/2015 & 370/A/2016 AYs: 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page 6 of 31 the extent

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

section 10(38), in respect of the long term capital gain of Rs 68,27,758, and that he did not set off the same against the long term capital loss brought forward to ITA Nos.3108/A/2010, 2609/A/2012, 671/A/2014, 243/A/2015 & 370/A/2016 AYs: 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page 6 of 31 the extent

SHRI ISHWARBHAI HIMMATBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are allowed

200/- on account of I.T.A Nos. 2009 &2010/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 3 Shri Govindbhai Himmatbhai Patel vs. DCIT & Shri Ishwarbhai Himmatbhai Patel vs. DCIT investment made in agricultural land on 3rd Feb, 2015 and also claimed exemption u/s. 54F of Rs. 4,78,000/- on account of investment in residential house in Bopal, Ahmedabad on 23rd July

SHRI GOVINDBHAI HIMMATBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are allowed

200/- on account of I.T.A Nos. 2009 &2010/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 3 Shri Govindbhai Himmatbhai Patel vs. DCIT & Shri Ishwarbhai Himmatbhai Patel vs. DCIT investment made in agricultural land on 3rd Feb, 2015 and also claimed exemption u/s. 54F of Rs. 4,78,000/- on account of investment in residential house in Bopal, Ahmedabad on 23rd July

THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(4), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI NILESHKUMAR DASHRATHBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains from penny stocks: If the transaction is supported by documents like contract notes, demat statements etc and is routed through the stock exchange and if the payments are by account payee cheques and there is no evidence that the cash has gone back to the assessee's account, it has to be treated as a genuine transaction

SHRI KETAN RAMNIKLAL MEHTA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2010-11 Shri Ketan Ramniklal Mehta, Income-Tax Officer, 10, Nishant Bungalows, Part-1, Vs Ward 7(2), Nr. Shyamal Char Rasta, Satellite Ahmedabad Road, Ahmedabad – 380015 Pan : Aevpm 2649 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

200, 100, 265 i.e. total 565 were purchased on 31/03/06 and sold on 21/04/09, 04/05/09 and 03/07/09 respectively. It is therefore there are repetitive purchasing and sale. The shares purchased on 31/03/06 were sold on 27/04/09 & 04/05/09 but again purchased on 27/05/09 (7850 Nos.) while again these were sold on 27/06/09, thereafter sale of long term capital gain sale