M/S. CHANDAN INFRATECH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

section 111A /112 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 4. The learned CIT (A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO by holding that true picture of transactions were not shown on the ground that appellant was not following FIFO method for calculating gain or loss for sale of shares. 5. Without prejudice

AURA SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 4. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing Ground No. 8 of the appellant's appeal before him challenging the learned Assessing Officer's action of adding

AURA SECURITIES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 4. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing Ground No. 8 of the appellant's appeal before him challenging the learned Assessing Officer's action of adding

M/S. ANIL DYECHEM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., (OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 377/Ahd/2011 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 M/S Anil Dye Chem Industries Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T.(Osd) 508, Ship Building, Cg Road, Navrangpura, Vs. Range-1, Ahmedabad-380009. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aabca7881K

sections 234B and 234C. It is submitted that appropriate relief be allowed as per the provisions of law.” 3. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in upholding that the profit of Rs. 27,83,879/- arising on sale of land is business income rather than capital gain

VISHAL EXPORTS OVERSEAS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground No.7 raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year:2009-10 Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., The Acit, Circle-8, 301 Sheel Complex, 4 Mayur Colony, Vs Ahmebada. Nr. Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan :Aaacv 2354 D (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms Urvashi Shodhan, Advocate Revenue By : Shria. P. Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 29/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

capital gain). Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the submission of the assessee and delete the addition made by AO. It be so held now. 8. Confirming levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C is unjustified. Initiation of penalty u/s, 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified. 9. Initiation of penalty

SHRI VATSAL NAVNITLAL PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Vatsal Navnitlal Parikh Ito, Ward-5(2)(1) 501, Belvedere Flat Vs Ahmedabad. 5Th Floor, Jodhpur Cross Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aavpp 9647 H Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt.Rajshri Vastal Parikh Ito, Ward-5(2)(1) 501, Belvedere Flat Vs Ahmedabad. 5Th Floor, Jodhpur Cross Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Acypp 8836 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divetia, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Appeals Are Filed By Two Assessees Against Orders Of Even Dated I.E. 27.12.2018 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. Since Common Issue Is Raised In Both The Appeals, We Dispose Of Them By This Common Order.

capital gain on sale of the property at Rs.2,80,50,000/- and determined total income at Rs.3,30,39,680/- and demanded tax of Rs.74,79,270/- including interest under section 234B and 234C

SMT. RAJSHRI VASTAL PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Vatsal Navnitlal Parikh Ito, Ward-5(2)(1) 501, Belvedere Flat Vs Ahmedabad. 5Th Floor, Jodhpur Cross Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aavpp 9647 H Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt.Rajshri Vastal Parikh Ito, Ward-5(2)(1) 501, Belvedere Flat Vs Ahmedabad. 5Th Floor, Jodhpur Cross Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Acypp 8836 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divetia, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Appeals Are Filed By Two Assessees Against Orders Of Even Dated I.E. 27.12.2018 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. Since Common Issue Is Raised In Both The Appeals, We Dispose Of Them By This Common Order.

capital gain on sale of the property at Rs.2,80,50,000/- and determined total income at Rs.3,30,39,680/- and demanded tax of Rs.74,79,270/- including interest under section 234B and 234C

SHREE VAIDEHI IMPEX PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain at ₹2,86,99,314/- by applying indexation to the WDV and accordingly restricted the addition made by the Assessing Officer from ₹3,59,64,670/- (treated as STCG) to ₹2,86,99,314/- (treated as LTCG). Thus, substantial relief was granted to the assessee by correcting the legal characterization of the gain and partially modifying the computation

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

capital gain of Rs.3,60,69,489 taking recourse to section 50C is directed to be deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs.36,06,948. In conclusion, all these grounds are treated as partly allowed with an enhancement of Rs. 15,000 for appellant's facilitating income accrued and arised in previous year. (B) Ground No.4 is against the initiation

ADANI AGRO PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee appeal is thus allowed

Bench: Shri O. P. Meena& Ms. Madhumita Roy

234C (Rs. 1,62,168) on the ground that the levies were mandatory. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend and/or alter the ground or grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Ground No.1is general ground challenging the validity of the 2. assessment order and thus no separate order is need

VIMARSH PRAKASHBHAI VASAVADA,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(2), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes subject to payment of cost

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gains" in the return of income. Other Grounds: 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law confirming the action of the learned AO in denying the deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,18,97,803. 8. The learned AO erred in fact and in law in levying interest u/s 234B

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

capital 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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5),, AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. SONAL D. MEHTA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are allowed consequently the Revenue appeals are dismissed

234C of the act is not justified. 5. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) is unjustified ITA N. 1858/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Revenue’s appeal ) 1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing to treat the profit from sales of shares of Rs.7,24,24,241/- as long term capital gain

SMT. SONAL D. MEHTA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), (ERSTWHILE ACIT, CIRCLE-7),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are allowed consequently the Revenue appeals are dismissed

234C of the act is not justified. 5. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) is unjustified ITA N. 1858/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Revenue’s appeal ) 1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing to treat the profit from sales of shares of Rs.7,24,24,241/- as long term capital gain

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-7,, AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. SONAL D. MEHTA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are allowed consequently the Revenue appeals are dismissed

234C of the act is not justified. 5. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) is unjustified ITA N. 1858/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Revenue’s appeal ) 1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing to treat the profit from sales of shares of Rs.7,24,24,241/- as long term capital gain

SMT. RAKSHABEN S. MEHTA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2), ( ERSTWHILE ACIT, CIRCLE-7),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are allowed consequently the Revenue appeals are dismissed

234C of the act is not justified. 5. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) is unjustified ITA N. 1858/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Revenue’s appeal ) 1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing to treat the profit from sales of shares of Rs.7,24,24,241/- as long term capital gain

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-7,, AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. USHABEN P. MEHTA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are allowed consequently the Revenue appeals are dismissed

234C of the act is not justified. 5. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) is unjustified ITA N. 1858/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Revenue’s appeal ) 1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing to treat the profit from sales of shares of Rs.7,24,24,241/- as long term capital gain

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-7,, AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. RAKSHABEN S. MEHTA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are allowed consequently the Revenue appeals are dismissed

234C of the act is not justified. 5. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) is unjustified ITA N. 1858/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Revenue’s appeal ) 1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing to treat the profit from sales of shares of Rs.7,24,24,241/- as long term capital gain

SMT. USHABEN P. MEHTA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2), (ERSTWHILE ACIT, CIRCLE-7),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are allowed consequently the Revenue appeals are dismissed

234C of the act is not justified. 5. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) is unjustified ITA N. 1858/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Revenue’s appeal ) 1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing to treat the profit from sales of shares of Rs.7,24,24,241/- as long term capital gain