SHANTABEN PARASMAL JAIN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shantaben Parasmal Jain, Vs. Dcit, 27, Vijay Society, Cir – 3(1), New Khanderao Road., Vadodara. Baroda. Pan No. Abwpj 8597 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri S. N. Dev, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings & Therefore The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Is Required To Be Quashed. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Disallowance Of Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 87,57,789/- As Exempt Income & Adding Back To The Total Income Of The Appellant & Therefore The Learned Ao Should Be Directed To Allow The Claim Of Exempt Income. 3. That The Appellant Craves Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter & Delete Any Grounds Of Appeal Before The Final Hearing.”

Capital Gains and allow the exemption as claimed by the assessees.” 9.2 We also note that the view taken by the Hon’ble ITAT in the case as discussed above was also upheld by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Bharti Somchad Shah in Tax Appeal No.1023 of 2017, wherein it was held

MS. VARSHA JITENDRA TEKWANI,,BARODA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1623/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ms Varsha Jitendra Tekwani, Income-Tax Officer, Flat No.302, Vs. Ward-3(1)(4), Jay Ranchod Avenue, Vadodara. Harni-Varasiya Ring Road, Vadodara.

capital gain was worked out by the authorities below taking the sale consideration of ₹ 58.55 Lacs under the provisions of section 50C of the Act which is a deeming provision. Thus the amount of profit worked out, as attributable to the assessee, was containing 2 elements. One of the element was the actual sale consideration as per the sale deed

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains are genuine and exempt from tax. I.T.A No. 2130/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No. 14 Smt. Meera Alpesh Kanugo vs. ITO 17. The Mumbai ITAT in the case of Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal vs. DCIT, ITA No.3311/Mum/2019 held that the fact that a scam has taken place in some penny stocks does not mean that all transactions in penny

SHRI JANI PARASMAL VAGHMAL (HUF),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(5),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1354/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Jain Parasmal Vaghmal(Huf), I.T.O., 27, Vijay Society, Vs. Ward-3(1)(5), New Khanderao Road, Vadodara. Baroda.

Capital Gains and allow the exemption as claimed by the assessees.” 8.1 We also note that the view taken by the Hon’ble ITAT in the case as discussed above was also upheld by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Bharti Somchad Shah in Tax Appeal No.1023 of 2017, wherein it was held

SHRI HASMUKHBHAI BACHUBHAI RADADIA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2742/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Hashmukhbhai Bachubhai Vs. Dcit, Radadia, Circle – 3(3), 492, Avadh, Opp. Amul Ice- Ahmedabad. Cream Parlour, Lad Society Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad. (Pan No. Aaqpr 7176 N) , , अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri U. S. Bhati & Abhimanyu Bhati, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A)” In Short] Dated 22.09.2016 Relevant To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.0 The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Penalty Order. 2.0 The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Concluding That Mistake Committed By The Appellant Was Intentional. He Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Explanation Of The Appellant Duly Supported By The Affidavits To The Effect That The Advocate

capital gain income. The assessee in respect of his claim also filed the copy of the affidavit of the accountant. However, the ld. CIT(A) disregarded the contention of the assessee and confirmed the order of AO by observing as under: “4. Decision: I have gone through the penalty order of the AO and submission filed by the appellant carefully

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(2), (FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

capital gain , and the assessee being beneficiary of such tax evasion wherein the assessee has carried out transaction of Rs. 2,77,500/- in the scrip of Safal Herbs Limited . The additions of Rs. 2,77,500/- was made by the AO to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. Alternatively

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2)(FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

capital gain , and the assessee being beneficiary of such tax evasion wherein the assessee has carried out transaction of Rs. 2,77,500/- in the scrip of Safal Herbs Limited . The additions of Rs. 2,77,500/- was made by the AO to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. Alternatively

ILABAHEN VIRALKUMAR MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The

capital gains/losses to various beneficiaries. The assessee being one of the beneficiary. The assessee has not declared and disclosed the transaction of sale and purchase of shares of Hemo Organics Limited in the return of income filed u/s 139, while the assessee declared gains arising on the sale of 8000 shares in the return of income filed in response

THE ITO, WARD-1, ANAND vs. SHRI HARESH MANSUKHBHAI DALWADI, ANAND

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 The Ito, Ward-1 Shri Haresh Mansukhbhai Dalwadi Anand. Vs Prop: Mahadev Steel Traders Gopi Talkies Road Nr.Ioc Petrol Pump Lotia Bhagol, Anand 388001 Pan : Acapd 4945 P

capital gain holding that the order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act has no legal sanctity, keeping in view of the fact that the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in quashing the order u/s 263 of the Act has not been accepted by the Revenue and further appeal u/s 260A of the Act before the Hon'ble High

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

260A of the Act before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and the same has been admitted in Tax Appeal No. 567 of 2016. The relevant substantial question of law admitted by the Hon’ble High Court reads as under:- [B] “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in deleting the addition

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

260A of the Act before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and the same has been admitted in Tax Appeal No. 567 of 2016. The relevant substantial question of law admitted by the Hon’ble High Court reads as under:- [B] “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in deleting the addition

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

260A of the Act before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and the same has been admitted in Tax Appeal No. 567 of 2016. The relevant substantial question of law admitted by the Hon’ble High Court reads as under:- [B] “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in deleting the addition

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

260A of the Act before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and the same has been admitted in Tax Appeal No. 567 of 2016. The relevant substantial question of law admitted by the Hon’ble High Court reads as under:- [B] “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in deleting the addition

SHAILESHBHAI BHA vs. ANGBHAI CHAVDA,BHAVNAGARVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4) BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

gains/ short term capital loss/unsecured loans , and the total sale value of the scrips of these three companies aggregated to Rs.16,79,307/. Proceedings u/s. 147/148 were initiated against the assessee by the AO after recording of the reasons and after taking of necessary administrative approvals from the higher authorities. Notice u/s. 148 dated 30.03.2019 was issued and served upon

M/S. VAIBHAV CONSTRUCTION,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,, ANAND

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

gains from industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings - Assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 - Deduction under section 80-IB -was denied on ground (i) that area of land was less than prescribed one acre, (ii) that one of dwelling units was more than prescribed limit of1500 square feet and (Hi) that two of dwelling units were merged which

M/S. VAIBHAV CONSTRUCTION,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,, ANAND

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

gains from industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings - Assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 - Deduction under section 80-IB -was denied on ground (i) that area of land was less than prescribed one acre, (ii) that one of dwelling units was more than prescribed limit of1500 square feet and (Hi) that two of dwelling units were merged which

SAKET M JAIN (HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 24.03.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961

capital gain and from other sources. The assessee is engaged in the business of cutting, falling and selling standing trees. The AO observed from profit and loss accounts of M/s.Essam Trading Company of which the assessee is proprietor , that the 4 I.T.A No.314/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. Saket M Jain(HUF) assessee has shown income from operation

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

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

gains from business or profession. 23.4.6. Under the above said facts and circumstance and following the above cited case laws, I am of the considered view that all the pre-requisites as established by section 37(1) are satisfied and therefore, I hold that the expenditure incurred towards the payment of consultancy fees to McKinsey & Co. are revenue in nature