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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

250/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

250/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

250/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

250/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

250/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

250/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

250/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that

SHRI VIKAS NARAYAN BADDI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2012-13

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) dated 18.12.2015 pertaining to the Asst.Year 2012-13. 2. At the outset itself, it was stated that solitary issue involved in the present appeal related to denial of claim of exemption of long term capital gain of Rs.1,08,69,338/- on account of investment of the same

SCARLETT DESIGNS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of the order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the ITO, Ward – 8(1), Ahmedabad under section 154 of the Act for the Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since both the appeals relate to the same assessee, these are heard analogously and are being disposed

AARK INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in issuing a notice

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Gain as per provision of Section 48 of the I. T. Act, 1961 for indexing the cost from F.Y. 2005-06 when the BSE shares were allotted and first held by the assessee.” 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs.79/- on account

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Gain as per provision of Section 48 of the I. T. Act, 1961 for indexing the cost from F.Y. 2005-06 when the BSE shares were allotted and first held by the assessee.” 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs.79/- on account

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Gain as per provision of Section 48 of the I. T. Act, 1961 for indexing the cost from F.Y. 2005-06 when the BSE shares were allotted and first held by the assessee.” 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs.79/- on account

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

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceuticals & Cosmetic products. The assessee had filed its return of income for the year under consideration

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

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceuticals & Cosmetic products. The assessee had filed its return of income for the year under consideration

UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Unimed Technologies Limited Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Survey No.22 & 22, Vs. Vadodara. Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B Asstt.Year : 2016-17 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Unimed Technologies Limited Vadodara. Vs. Survey No.22 & 22, Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. The Revenue is in appeal challenging the deletion of two disallowances made by ITA No.623 and 632/Ahd/2024 2 the ACIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”] vide order dated 29.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, whereas the assessee

SIRHIND STEELS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 713/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Sirhind Steel Ltd., P.C.I.T-4, 7Th Floor, Shalin Building, Vs. Ambawadi, Nr. Nehru Bridge Corner, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad.

capital gains, as brought out by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Express Newspapers Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 250 (SC), it would be clear that the court should not allow the provisions relating to section 50(1

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 397/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Dcit Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 532/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Acit, Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr Dr & Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. AIA Engineering Ltd - Cross Appeals AY : 2016-17 ITA No. 532/Ahd/2024 – Department’s appeal 2. We shall first take up the Department’s appeal in ITA No. 532/Ahd/2024. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under:- “1