M/S. VISHAL ENGINEERS & GALVANIZERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

2. The instant appeal has been filed by the Revenue with the following grounds: “i. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.25,46,06,987/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain & Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.3,26,02,919/-. ii. On the facts and circumstances of the case

SHRI ASHOKKUMAR KHIMRAJ,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1247/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Shri Ashokkumar Khimraj Ito, बनाम/ Prop. Ridhi Siddhi Ward – 3(1), Vs. Enterprises, 21, Shitalkunj Ahmedabad. Society, Rambaug Road, Ahmedabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afdpk 6404 N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Parin Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vinod Talwani, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(here- in-after referred to as "the Act") dated 16.12.2010 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. Ashokkumar Khimraj vs. ITO A.Y. 2006-07 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. The Learned CIT(A) as well as the A.O have grossly erred

M/S. SURZLON GLOBAL SERVICES LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 67-68/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 M/S. Suzlon Global Services Limited, Principal Commissioner 5 Suzlon, Shrimali Society, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Near Shree Krishna Centre, Ahmedabad. Nr. Judges Bunglow Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aaics1406R

gains in the hands of shareholders of amalgamating company on transfer of shares of amalgamating company in the scheme of amalgamation under the provisions of section 47 (vii) of the Act. v. Cost of capital assets to be the same as in the hands of previous owner where capital assets became the assets of the successor as a result

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

gain as is equal to the amount, if any, by which the appropriate fraction of the amount utilised for acquiring the new asset exceeds the appropriate fraction of the cost of the transferred asset. Explanation.—In this sub-section,— (i) “appropriate fraction” means the fraction which represents the extent to which the income derived from the capital asset transferred

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

gain as is equal to the amount, if any, by which the appropriate fraction of the amount utilised for acquiring the new asset exceeds the appropriate fraction of the cost of the transferred asset. Explanation.—In this sub-section,— (i) “appropriate fraction” means the fraction which represents the extent to which the income derived from the capital asset transferred

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

gain as is equal to the amount, if any, by which the appropriate fraction of the amount utilised for acquiring the new asset exceeds the appropriate fraction of the cost of the transferred asset. Explanation.—In this sub-section,— (i) “appropriate fraction” means the fraction which represents the extent to which the income derived from the capital asset transferred

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

gain as is equal to the amount, if any, by which the appropriate fraction of the amount utilised for acquiring the new asset exceeds the appropriate fraction of the cost of the transferred asset. Explanation.—In this sub-section,— (i) “appropriate fraction” means the fraction which represents the extent to which the income derived from the capital asset transferred

M/S GREENWELL ORCHARDS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-3 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

2(14), read with sections 28(i) and 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Capital asset (Surrender

STERLING ADDLIFE INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. PR. CIT-4,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.967/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Sterling Addlife India The Pr.Cit-4 Pvt.Ltd. Ahmedabad Vs. Sterling Hospital Buildings Off Gurukul Road Memnagar Ahmedabad-380 052 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadca 0897 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Dinal Shah & A.C.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/01/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax–4, Ahmedabad [Cit In Short] Dated 28/03/2018 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

2 is that the Ld. Ld.CIT erred in holding that the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) dated 29-02-2016 as erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest of Revenue under section 263 of the Act. 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a private limited company and deriving income from hospital-medical services

ARJUN DAS JASUJA,JABALPUR vs. THE CIT (IT & TP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.796/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Arjun Das Jasuja The Cit (It & Tp) बनाम/ 16, Nayagaon, Rampur Circle-2 V/S. Jebalpur Ahmedabad Madhya Pradesh – 462 008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aehpj 3059 D अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sapan Usrethe, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nand Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

2 to Section 263 of the Act, which allows revision of an order that is passed without proper inquiry or verification. 6.2. Section 55 of the Act deals with the determination of the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement of capital assets for the purposes of computing capital gains

L/H LATE SHRI ARVINDBHAI NARSINHBHAI PATEL (SHRI PARESHBHAI PATEL),VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

2. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. 3. In the case in hand the assessee has sold an immovable property on 04.11.2009 i.e. during the F.Y. 2009-10. No return of income, however, was filed for the said A.Y. 2010-11. Thus, under Section

SARDAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD 3(1)(3),, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2156 & 2157/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 Sardar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd Ito, ‘’B’’, Alankar Apartment, Ward 3(1)(3), Vs. Parkarwada, Dandia Bazar, Baroda. Vadodara. Pan: Aaabt2648D

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was also ustified in holding that interest income of Rs.16,14,579/- and Rs.32,83,410/- respectively on deposits placed with State Bank of India was not exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals

SARDAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD 3(1)(3),, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2156 & 2157/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 Sardar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd Ito, ‘’B’’, Alankar Apartment, Ward 3(1)(3), Vs. Parkarwada, Dandia Bazar, Baroda. Vadodara. Pan: Aaabt2648D

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was also ustified in holding that interest income of Rs.16,14,579/- and Rs.32,83,410/- respectively on deposits placed with State Bank of India was not exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

section 263 action on the survey disclosure does not survive. The Assessing Officer’s acceptance of the voluntarily offered Rs. 2,30,00,000/- as short-term capital gain

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

section 263 action on the survey disclosure does not survive. The Assessing Officer’s acceptance of the voluntarily offered Rs. 2,30,00,000/- as short-term capital gain

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.

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-2015. Asstt. Year 2014-15 2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order dated 18.3.2019 passed by the learned Pr.C.I.T. u/s.263

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION),CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. NANDESARI INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION,, NANDESARI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on-07.08.2015. 3. Subsequently, a notice u/s. 142(1) of the I T Act alongwith show-cause letter dated 10-12-2015 was issued which are as under: 3 . A.Y. 2010-11 "The scrutiny of the records reveals that you have claimed following expenditure which was in nature of capital expenditure Particulars

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. JAMNAGAR AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

263 of the Act 2428/Ahd/2017 -Do- 2014-15 -Do- -Do- 143(3) of the Act 2. The issue involved being common in all the four appeals filed by the Revenue, all such appeals were heard together and disposed of by the common order. 3. We shall adopt the facts concerning AY 2009-10 in ITA No. 2425/Ahd/2017 for the purposes