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

1,66,067/- in respect of the carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss. 19. So far as this ground of appeal is concerned, it is sufficient to take note of the fact that, as noted by the Assessing Officer, the assessee had claimed exemption under section 10(38), in respect of the long term capital gain

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

1,66,067/- in respect of the carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss. 19. So far as this ground of appeal is concerned, it is sufficient to take note of the fact that, as noted by the Assessing Officer, the assessee had claimed exemption under section 10(38), in respect of the long term capital gain

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

1,66,067/- in respect of the carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss. 19. So far as this ground of appeal is concerned, it is sufficient to take note of the fact that, as noted by the Assessing Officer, the assessee had claimed exemption under section 10(38), in respect of the long term capital gain

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.

200 days - Whether activity of frequent buying and selling of shares over a short span of period had to be treated as business being adventure in nature of trade and, thus, income arising from said transactions was to be treated as business income and not as capital gain - Held, yes 7. Anand M.Fatehpuria HUF Vs. ACIT [ 153 ITD 145 (Mumbai

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.

200 days - Whether activity of frequent buying and selling of shares over a short span of period had to be treated as business being adventure in nature of trade and, thus, income arising from said transactions was to be treated as business income and not as capital gain - Held, yes 7. Anand M.Fatehpuria HUF Vs. ACIT [ 153 ITD 145 (Mumbai

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.

200 days - Whether activity of frequent buying and selling of shares over a short span of period had to be treated as business being adventure in nature of trade and, thus, income arising from said transactions was to be treated as business income and not as capital gain - Held, yes 7. Anand M.Fatehpuria HUF Vs. ACIT [ 153 ITD 145 (Mumbai

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.

200 days - Whether activity of frequent buying and selling of shares over a short span of period had to be treated as business being adventure in nature of trade and, thus, income arising from said transactions was to be treated as business income and not as capital gain - Held, yes 7. Anand M.Fatehpuria HUF Vs. ACIT [ 153 ITD 145 (Mumbai

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.

200 days - Whether activity of frequent buying and selling of shares over a short span of period had to be treated as business being adventure in nature of trade and, thus, income arising from said transactions was to be treated as business income and not as capital gain - Held, yes 7. Anand M.Fatehpuria HUF Vs. ACIT [ 153 ITD 145 (Mumbai

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.

200 days - Whether activity of frequent buying and selling of shares over a short span of period had to be treated as business being adventure in nature of trade and, thus, income arising from said transactions was to be treated as business income and not as capital gain - Held, yes 7. Anand M.Fatehpuria HUF Vs. ACIT [ 153 ITD 145 (Mumbai

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS 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.

200 days - Whether activity of frequent buying and selling of shares over a short span of period had to be treated as business being adventure in nature of trade and, thus, income arising from said transactions was to be treated as business income and not as capital gain - Held, yes 7. Anand M.Fatehpuria HUF Vs. ACIT [ 153 ITD 145 (Mumbai

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

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)

1-4-1998 at its book value – Thereafter, assessee during relevant assessment year sold some of shares out of above shares and offered profit earned on sale of shares as long-term capital gain - Assessing Officer invoking provisions of section 45(2) computed income of assessee separately as business income till date of conversion of shares from stock to investment

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)

1-4-1998 at its book value – Thereafter, assessee during relevant assessment year sold some of shares out of above shares and offered profit earned on sale of shares as long-term capital gain - Assessing Officer invoking provisions of section 45(2) computed income of assessee separately as business income till date of conversion of shares from stock to investment

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

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

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

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

1,72,41,187/- . Against the long term capital gain, the assessee has claimed exemption u/s. 54B of Rs. 32,86,200/- 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

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

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

1,72,41,187/- . Against the long term capital gain, the assessee has claimed exemption u/s. 54B of Rs. 32,86,200/- 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

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