NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

gain assessable in the year when sale was made and loss from the date of conversion to the date of sale was to be treated as business loss, which assessee claimed. The valuation on date of conversion into stock in trade was taken on the basis of report of Chartered Accountant. There was no contrary sale price available

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

gain assessable in the year when sale was made and loss from the date of conversion to the date of sale was to be treated as business loss, which assessee claimed. The valuation on date of conversion into stock in trade was taken on the basis of report of Chartered Accountant. There was no contrary sale price available

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

gain assessable in the year when sale was made and loss from the date of conversion to the date of sale was to be treated as business loss, which assessee claimed. The valuation on date of conversion into stock in trade was taken on the basis of report of Chartered Accountant. There was no contrary sale price available

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

gain assessable in the year when sale was made and loss from the date of conversion to the date of sale was to be treated as business loss, which assessee claimed. The valuation on date of conversion into stock in trade was taken on the basis of report of Chartered Accountant. There was no contrary sale price available

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

ATUL LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT (OSD), RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Took Us Through The Chronology Of Events Leading To The Rectification Order Passed U/S. 154 Of The Act ,Which Was Carried In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Same & Against Which The Assessee Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us. Ld. Counsel For The

section is charged. Issue revised demand notice/chalan /RQ accordingly. 5. The matter was carried in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee contended that the issue of set off of unabsorbed depreciation before allowing deduction u/s. 80IA was a debatable issue and the rectification to this effect could not have been resorted

UMESH SUMANLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

234D are unjustified.” 3. The assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 21.03.2014 declaring total income at Rs.43,560/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee sold an immovable property for Rs.45,00,000/- during

THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDITIONAL CIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

section 80-IC of the Act. Both the parties before us relied on the order of authorities below as favorable to them. 45. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The controversy in the case on hand relates whether the donation paid by the assessee under section

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

section 80-IC of the Act. Both the parties before us relied on the order of authorities below as favorable to them. 45. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The controversy in the case on hand relates whether the donation paid by the assessee under section

THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

section 80-IC of the Act. Both the parties before us relied on the order of authorities below as favorable to them. 45. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The controversy in the case on hand relates whether the donation paid by the assessee under section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

section 80-IC of the Act. Both the parties before us relied on the order of authorities below as favorable to them. 45. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The controversy in the case on hand relates whether the donation paid by the assessee under section

SHRI HEMANT UMEDBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

234D of the Act. 2. The assessee has not pressed ground no. 4. Now solitary ground remain for adjudication is disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 77,58,664/- made u/s. 36(1)(iii). 3. Facts of the case are that assessee is a partner in multiple Partnership firm and assessee is also doing business of multiple purchase and sale

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. TANMAI RAJ GOPAL, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains of 9,25,60,844 in the computation sheet is directed to be deleted. The refund of 2,79,77,705 as claimed in the return is to be granted. Interest levied under section 234D

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, MEHSANA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

gain and balance addition may be deleted. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) to the extent that the said claim may be verified as a whole and thereafter the Assessing Officer should adjudicate the same as per law. Needless to say the assessee be given ITA Nos.2089/A/2013, 1751/A/2016, 1968/A/2016 445/A/2018, 446/A/2018, 616/A/2018 & 617/A/2018

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, MEHSANA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

gain and balance addition may be deleted. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) to the extent that the said claim may be verified as a whole and thereafter the Assessing Officer should adjudicate the same as per law. Needless to say the assessee be given ITA Nos.2089/A/2013, 1751/A/2016, 1968/A/2016 445/A/2018, 446/A/2018, 616/A/2018 & 617/A/2018

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

gain and balance addition may be deleted. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) to the extent that the said claim may be verified as a whole and thereafter the Assessing Officer should adjudicate the same as per law. Needless to say the assessee be given ITA Nos.2089/A/2013, 1751/A/2016, 1968/A/2016 445/A/2018, 446/A/2018, 616/A/2018 & 617/A/2018

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 4, BARODA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

gain and balance addition may be deleted. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) to the extent that the said claim may be verified as a whole and thereafter the Assessing Officer should adjudicate the same as per law. Needless to say the assessee be given ITA Nos.2089/A/2013, 1751/A/2016, 1968/A/2016 445/A/2018, 446/A/2018, 616/A/2018 & 617/A/2018

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, BARODA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

gain and balance addition may be deleted. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) to the extent that the said claim may be verified as a whole and thereafter the Assessing Officer should adjudicate the same as per law. Needless to say the assessee be given ITA Nos.2089/A/2013, 1751/A/2016, 1968/A/2016 445/A/2018, 446/A/2018, 616/A/2018 & 617/A/2018