RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD.,),HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

gains under section 45 of the Act, and distribution of new shares allotted by Sterling as being distributed by the assessee to its shareholders as dividend under section 2(22) of the Act. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR submitted as under:- • the assessee has not transferred the treasury undertaking

JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

gains under section 45 of the Act, and distribution of new shares allotted by Sterling as being distributed by the assessee to its shareholders as dividend under section 2(22) of the Act. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR submitted as under:- • the assessee has not transferred the treasury undertaking

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI MAHESH SOMABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that "There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de-mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels." The above noted factors, including

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

24,66,410/- Total Rs. 41,74,014/- IT(SS)A No.1/Ahd/2023 Kailash Ramavatar Goenka vs. ACIT and seven other appeals (By Assessee and By Revenue) Asst. Years : 2016-17 to 2019-20 9. The assessee submitted that Flat No. A-902 was purchased on 21-08- 2018 and the same was sold on 26-04-2019 and the capital

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD vs. JHAVERI SANDEEP BIPINCHANDRA (HUF), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2016-17 Jhaveri Sandeep Income Tax Officer, Vs. Bipinchandra (Huf), Ward-5(3)(1), 21, Crest Nutan Laxmi Soc., Ahmedabad 9Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400049 Pan : Aachj 0855 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Pune-12 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 24.08.2023 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 Raised By The Department Reads As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Treating The Income Of Rs. 54,49,539/- As Short Term Capital Gain Instead Of Business Income.” 3. The Issue Raised In The Above Ground Relates To The Short Term Capital Gain Returned By The Assessee, On The Transactions Of Dealing In Shares, As Ito Vs Jhaveri Sandeep Bipinchandra Huf Ay : 2016-17 2

Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the Department reads as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the income

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

24. In the case of Satish Kishore v. ITO (2019) 110 Taxman.com 307 (Delhi Tribunal), the assessee, an individual, filed return of income claiming ITA Nos.14 to 16/Ahd/2024 Shailesh Subodhchandra Jhaveri vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2012-13 - 23– long-term capital gain on sale of shares as exempt under section

SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

24. In the case of Satish Kishore v. ITO (2019) 110 Taxman.com 307 (Delhi Tribunal), the assessee, an individual, filed return of income claiming ITA Nos.14 to 16/Ahd/2024 Shailesh Subodhchandra Jhaveri vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2012-13 - 23– long-term capital gain on sale of shares as exempt under section

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

24. In the case of Satish Kishore v. ITO (2019) 110 Taxman.com 307 (Delhi Tribunal), the assessee, an individual, filed return of income claiming ITA Nos.14 to 16/Ahd/2024 Shailesh Subodhchandra Jhaveri vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2012-13 - 23– long-term capital gain on sale of shares as exempt under section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came to be levied on such addition which was confirmed by CIT(A) as well. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 24

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came to be levied on such addition which was confirmed by CIT(A) as well. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 24

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came to be levied on such addition which was confirmed by CIT(A) as well. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 24

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came to be levied on such addition which was confirmed by CIT(A) as well. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 24

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came to be levied on such addition which was confirmed by CIT(A) as well. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 24

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came to be levied on such addition which was confirmed by CIT(A) as well. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 24

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came to be levied on such addition which was confirmed by CIT(A) as well. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 24

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came to be levied on such addition which was confirmed by CIT(A) as well. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 24

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came to be levied on such addition which was confirmed by CIT(A) as well. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 24

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