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.

3) CIT Vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [100 ITR 706 (Supreme Court)] Section 2(13) of the Income-tax Act, 961 - Business - Adventure in nature of trade - Assessment year 1956-57 - Assessee company purchased shares and sold part of it -Assessee claimed that shares were purchased by way of investment and profit amount to capital gains - Tribunal found

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.

3) CIT Vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [100 ITR 706 (Supreme Court)] Section 2(13) of the Income-tax Act, 961 - Business - Adventure in nature of trade - Assessment year 1956-57 - Assessee company purchased shares and sold part of it -Assessee claimed that shares were purchased by way of investment and profit amount to capital gains - Tribunal found

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.

3) CIT Vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [100 ITR 706 (Supreme Court)] Section 2(13) of the Income-tax Act, 961 - Business - Adventure in nature of trade - Assessment year 1956-57 - Assessee company purchased shares and sold part of it -Assessee claimed that shares were purchased by way of investment and profit amount to capital gains - Tribunal found

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.

3) CIT Vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [100 ITR 706 (Supreme Court)] Section 2(13) of the Income-tax Act, 961 - Business - Adventure in nature of trade - Assessment year 1956-57 - Assessee company purchased shares and sold part of it -Assessee claimed that shares were purchased by way of investment and profit amount to capital gains - Tribunal found

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.

3) CIT Vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [100 ITR 706 (Supreme Court)] Section 2(13) of the Income-tax Act, 961 - Business - Adventure in nature of trade - Assessment year 1956-57 - Assessee company purchased shares and sold part of it -Assessee claimed that shares were purchased by way of investment and profit amount to capital gains - Tribunal found

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)

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

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

3 of 24\n\nSubmission of Revenue\n\n6.\nShri Alpesh Parmar, Ld. CIT D.R. has taken us through the facts of\nthe case in quite detail. Before we adjudicate the ground taken by the\nRevenue, it will be relevant to recapitulate the facts of the case as brought\non record in the assessment order.\n(i)\nThe assessee

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

3 of 24\n\nSubmission of Revenue\n\n6. Shri Alpesh Parmar, Ld. CIT D.R. has taken us through the facts of\nthe case in quite detail. Before we adjudicate the ground taken by the\nRevenue, it will be relevant to recapitulate the facts of the case as brought\non record in the assessment order.\n\n(i) The assessee

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

3) and assessed the Total Income at the same amount of Rs. 17,25,67,630/- as declared by the assessee, but made set-off of Long-Term Capital Loss (STT not paid) of Rs.15,41,625/- and Short-Term Capital Loss of Rs. 2,46,64,662/- against the Long-Term Capital Gain

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

3,76,77,305/-. • Short-Term Capital Gains (Silver Harmony - AY 2020-21): Rs. 33,17,936/-. 10.1. Accordingly, the AO was directed to tax the capital gains year-wise under the appropriate heads and provide relief for the disallowed expenses IT(SS)A No.1/Ahd/2023 Kailash Ramavatar Goenka vs. ACIT and seven other appeals (By Assessee and By Revenue) Asst

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 JAIPRAKASH DEVKINANDAN CHIRIPAL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 405/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Jaiprakash Devkinandan Chiripal, D.C.I.T, 283, New Cloth Market, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Outside Raipur Gate, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380002. Pan: Aajpa4564C

3,11,00,000-5,36,200/-) instead of long term capital gain of Rs. 2,86,64,441/- which was claimed by the assessee. Asstt. Year 2013-14 5 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT (A). The assessee before the Ld. CIT (A), besides the submissions made before the AO, tendered that he failed

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

3 Court, he became shareholder of M/s SRK Industries Ltd. Subsequently, the assessee found the opportunity of earning long term capital gain and thus he sold the shares at the stock exchange and received proceeds in the form of ECS through broker. 4. However, the AO found that the Directorate of Investigation Kolkata carried out countrywide enquiry/ investigation with respect

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-:

3) of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) challenging the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the profits arising from the share transactions claimed as Long Term Capital Gain, Short Term Capital Gain, Speculation Profit and Dividend Income as business income; and, after considering the submissions made by the assessee

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