THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHANDWALA INTEGRATED FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

gains. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above since the assessee has failed to disclose his true income/book

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

gains. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above since the assessee has failed to disclose his true income/book

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

gains. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above since the assessee has failed to disclose his true income/book

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

gains. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above since the assessee has failed to disclose his true income/book

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS SECURITIES LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

gains. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above since the assessee has failed to disclose his true income/book

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

gains. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above since the assessee has failed to disclose his true income/book

SMT. RESHMIBEN P. KANUGO,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), VADODARA

In the result appeal filed the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 2131/Ahd/2018 2014-15 Smt. Reshmiben P. Income Tax Kanugo, Officer, 26, Jawahar Society, Nr. Ward 3(1)(3), Bakrawadi, R.V. Desai Vadodara. Road, Vadodara, Gujarat-390001. Pan: Azupk6721B 2. 2132/Ahd/2018 2014-15 Shri Alpesh P. Income Tax Kanugo(Huf), Officer, 26, Jawahar Society, Ward 3(1)(3), Nr. Bakrawadi, Ahmedabad. R.V. Desai Road, Vadodara-390001. Pan: Aajha5173P 3. 2133/Ahd/2018 2014-15 Shri Parasmal B. Kanugo Income Tax Officer, (Huf), Ward-3(1)(3), 26, Jawahar Society, Nr. Ahmedabad. Bakrawadi, R.V. Desai Road, Vadodara, Gujarat-390001. Pan: Aakhp0126Q

211 0 0 Textiles Ltd. 2 Do 10.04.2013 32574 16.09.2011 396 0 0 3 Do 25.09.2013 3110921 16.09.2011 25762 31,60,046 26,369 0 31,33,677 4. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings disallowed the claim of exemption of long term capital gains, claimed by the assessee on the sale of shares of M/s Shri

THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. SEJAL D. SHAH,, AHMEDABAD

capital gains addition of Rs.36,06,950/- after invoking Section 50C, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties reiterating their respective stands. Case file perused. ITA No. 3400/Ahd/14 [ITO vs. Smt. Sejal D Shah] A.Y. 2010-11 2. We notice at the outset that the CIT(A)’s findings

SMT. MEERA ALPESH KANUGO,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

211 0 0 Textiles Ltd. 2 Do 10.04.2013 76165 16.09.2011 923 0 0 3 Do 11.04.2013 34236 16.09.2011 396 0 4 Do 18.07.2013 3141551 16.09.2011 26380 0 5 Do 05.08.2013 1097231 16.09.2011 9117 0 6 Do 25.09.2013 1900944 16.09.2011 15733 62,66,705 52,760 0 62,13,945 4. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings disallowed

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LIVA HEALTHCARE LTD. ( NOW CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

211/-) made by the AO on account of physician samples distributed at free of cost. (2) The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,17,53,365/- made by the AO on account of sponsorship of doctors9 overseas tours. (3) The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting

SMT. SHARDABEN B. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

capital gains. The assertions made in the revisional order against the assessee clearly forecloses the case against the assessee with finality leaving no scope with the AO to apply his own mind, while directing him to make all inquiries and investigations. The direction to AO make inquiries is ostensibly an empty formality leaving no liberty with AO ITA No. 1026/Ahd/18

SMT. MINAL NAYAN SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR, CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

Section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirements of the order being erroneous. 9.2 In the instant case, it is demonstrated on behalf of the assessee that necessary inquiries were made towards computation of long term capital gain and claim of deduction under s.54F of the Act. The issue

ASMAN INVESTMENT LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1928/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Aasman Investment Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Arvind Mills Premises, Vs. Ward-1(2), Naroda Raod, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380025 Pan: Aabca5968R

gain and such gajn whether exempt or not as per normal provisions of the Act is taxable for the purpose of computing book profit u/s 115 JB of the Act. 2.2 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld . CIT{A) ought to have appreciated that clause (f) to section 115JB(1) relates

SHRI DHANRAJ BAXIRAM CHOPRA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,— 8.1 A plain reading of the above provision reveals that, subject to the conditions as specified under section 54F of the Act, the assessee can claim exemption for the Page 4 of 6 Asstt. Year 2014-15 investment made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SANJAY PRATAPRAI MEHTA, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

capital gain earned by the assessee cannot be held bogus merely DCIT vs. Sanjay Prataprai Mehta Asst.Year –2014-15 - 8– based on some report/ finding unearthed in case of third party/parties in the given facts and circumstances unless cogent material is brought against particular assessee on record. Therefore, we hereby set aside the finding of the learned

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1285 & 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & Ita No.1396 & 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1327 & 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1414 & 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. Torrent House Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench

section (5) of Section 80-IA. In this case, the question that arose for consideration ITA.Nos.1285/Ahd/2017 & 7 others A.Y.2009-10 38 before this Court related to computation of the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80-E, as it then existed, after setting off the loss incurred by the assessee in the manufacture of alloy steels. Section

TANVI SANDEEP MATHUR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Capital Gain (STCG) comes to Rs.77,00,000/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer charged the assessee’s income to tax as STCG thereby not allowing the deduction of Rs.47,00,000/- claimed under Section 54 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

Capital Gain – [as per Return of income] Rs. 11,37,32,825/- D. Income from other sources [as per Return of income] Rs. 80,07,21,966/- Assessed Income Rs. 18,07,02,90,489/- Brought forward losses of Rs. 2,41,44,65,028/- Rs. Nil for A.Y. 2013-14 Adjusted fully by the Dept. while passing order