DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

capital gain arising on sale of shares\nwas duly disclosed by the assessee in its return and deduction under\nSection 11(1A) of the Act was claimed, as eligible to the assessee. He\nsubmitted that this was not the case of any loan or share application\nmoney, the creditworthiness or genuineness of which was required to be\nestablished

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

1)are prescribed in section 10. One such clause is clause No. (38). The Long-Term Capital Gain of Rs. 2,62,06,472/-earned by the Mrs. Shikha Sanjaya Sharma vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2016-17 assessee is covered under this Clause (38) of section 10 and therefore it is not to be included in the Total Income. (iv) Thereafter

ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

capital gain arising on sale of shares\nwas duly disclosed by the assessee in its return and deduction under\nSection 11(1A) of the Act was claimed, as eligible to the assessee. He\nsubmitted that this was not the case of any loan or share application\nmoney, the creditworthiness or genuineness of which was required to be\nestablished

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains have been credited to the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act. Once such gains form part of net profit, the computation of their quantum must necessarily follow the computation mechanism contained in section 48, which statutorily mandates indexation. Denial of indexation would artificially inflate book profit and result in MAT being levied

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains have been credited to the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act. Once such gains form part of net profit, the computation of their quantum must necessarily follow the computation mechanism contained in section 48, which statutorily mandates indexation. Denial of indexation would artificially inflate book profit and result in MAT being levied

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains have been credited to the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act. Once such gains form part of net profit, the computation of their quantum must necessarily follow the computation mechanism contained in section 48, which statutorily mandates indexation. Denial of indexation would artificially inflate book profit and result in MAT being levied

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains have been credited to the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act. Once such gains form part of net profit, the computation of their quantum must necessarily follow the computation mechanism contained in section 48, which statutorily mandates indexation. Denial of indexation would artificially inflate book profit and result in MAT being levied

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains have been credited to the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act. Once such gains form part of net profit, the computation of their quantum must necessarily follow the computation mechanism contained in section 48, which statutorily mandates indexation. Denial of indexation would artificially inflate book profit and result in MAT being levied

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains have been credited to the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act. Once such gains form part of net profit, the computation of their quantum must necessarily follow the computation mechanism contained in section 48, which statutorily mandates indexation. Denial of indexation would artificially inflate book profit and result in MAT being levied

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

200 12,21,35,500 29,84,43,700 19,59,00,000 68,88,50,400 3. Plot Improvement Payments 3,38,050 3,14,74,000 2,30,06,000 6,02,000 5,54,20,050 4. Unexplained Payments 4,64,61,650 7,45,07,478 14,46,47,732 1

THE ACIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CHANDRAKANT G PATEL, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

200/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No. 799/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 ACIT vs. Shri Chandrakant G. Patel 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in considering the mistake by the assessee as bonafide even though it is clear from the facts of the case that the assessee

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

1,04,55,043/- on sale of scrip of M/s SRK Industries Ltd as sham or bogus transaction and treated same as income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act. 4.2 In addition the AO also made addition of Rs. 2,09,100/- being commission expenses incurred for taking accommodation entry in guise of long term capital

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT , BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

capital gains have been credited to\nthe profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act.\nOnce such gains form part of net profit, the computation of their quantum\nmust necessarily follow the computation mechanism contained in section 48,\nwhich statutorily mandates indexation. Denial of indexation would artificially\ninflate book profit and result in MAT being levied

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

capital gains have been credited to\nthe profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act.\nOnce such gains form part of net profit, the computation of their quantum\nmust necessarily follow the computation mechanism contained in section 48,\nwhich statutorily mandates indexation. Denial of indexation would artificially\ninflate book profit and result in MAT being levied

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

200/- on extrapolation by computing the said amount at average of March 2016. The addition is confirmed for the year under consideration on presumption and estimation is untenable in law. It be so held now, and addition be deleted. 3. The Hon. CIT Appeal erred both in law and on facts in confirming addition

PARUL UNIVERSITY,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT,EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

200/- on extrapolation by computing the said amount at average of March 2016. The addition is confirmed for the year under consideration on presumption and estimation is untenable in law. It be so held now, and addition be deleted. 3. The Hon. CIT Appeal erred both in law and on facts in confirming addition

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

200/- on extrapolation by computing the said amount at average of March 2016. The addition is confirmed for the year under consideration on presumption and estimation is untenable in law. It be so held now, and addition be deleted. 3. The Hon. CIT Appeal erred both in law and on facts in confirming addition

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

200/- on extrapolation by computing the said amount at average of March 2016. The addition is confirmed for the year under consideration on presumption and estimation is untenable in law. It be so held now, and addition be deleted. 3. The Hon. CIT Appeal erred both in law and on facts in confirming addition