THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL ENGINEERING & GALVANIZERS,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

gain. The appellant on the other hand has submitted that provisions of section 45(4) are not applicable as there was no transfer of assets by way of distribution of capital assets and there was no dissolution of the firm. The AO was not justified in observing that on conversion of the appellant from to the company under Part

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

264 CTR 0030 (Bom) : (2013) 96 DTR 0193 (Bom) : (2014) 361 ITR 0531 (Bom) : (2014) 221 Taxman 0166 (Bom); has held that the proceedings before DRP are extension of assessment proceedings. Therefore they are not bound by the decision of Tribunals unlike CIT(A) as long as the issue is not acceptable on merit and/or the issue is being contested

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

264 CTR 0030 (Bom) : (2013) 96 DTR 0193 (Bom) : (2014) 361 ITR 0531 (Bom) : (2014) 221 Taxman 0166 (Bom); has held that the proceedings before DRP are extension of assessment proceedings. Therefore they are not bound by the decision of Tribunals unlike CIT(A) as long as the issue is not acceptable on merit and/or the issue is being contested

NRUPAL NARESHCHANDRA RAJA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains was earned by the assessee in the first instance. Thirdly, the counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no specific finding in the order of Principal CIT as to how the assessing officer has passed an erroneous order. The only reason why the assessment order passed under Nrupal Nareshchandra Raja vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2013-14 - 5– section

SHRI LAXMANBHAI JIVRAJBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 421/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 ) बनाम/ Laxmanbhai Jivrajbhai Patel The Dcit M/S.Shree Krishna Vijay Saw Circle-5(3) Vs. Mills Ahmedabad Lati Gbazar Zone-3 Geeta Mandir Ahmedabad-380 022 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abhpp 3999 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.J. Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Nilam Das Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 08/05/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 17/06/2019 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 (Appeals)–5, Ahmedabad [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cit(A)-5/Dcit Cir.5(3)/10530/2017-18 Dated 08/12/2017 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 16/02/2016 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- Laxmanbhai Jivrajbhai Patel Vs.Dcit Asst.Year - 2013-14 1. The Cit(Appeals) Erred In Not Granting Deduction Of Rs.94,90,000/- Paid Towards Cancellation Of Banakhat While Computing The Short Term Capital Gains, Which Arose On Sale Of Agricultural Land. The Appellant Reserves Its Right To Add, Amend, Alter Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Stated Hereinabove Either Before Or At The Time Of Hearing. The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Not Granting The Deduction Amounting To Rs. 94,90,000/- Paid Towards Cancellation Of Banakhat Against The Income Under The Head Capital Gain.

Capital Gain (in short STCG) at Rs. 12,91,243/- after deducting the cost of acquisition amounting to Rs. 1,39,43,995/- against the sale consideration. On the question by the AO, the assessee submitted as detailed under: Laxmanbhai Jivrajbhai Patel vs.DCIT Asst.Year - 2013-14 1. That the agricultural land was purchased along with other four co- owners

GUJARAT VENTURE CAPITAL FUND 1995,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 45(1) r.w. s. 48(i) of the Act, wherein the chargeability of capital gains to income tax arises on transfer of capital asset effected in the previous year. 7. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) erred in observing that the payments made by the appellant to 20ML

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

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

M/S. HAVMOR ICE CREAM LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Havmor Ice Cream Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Commerce House Iv Vs Income-Tax, Besides Shell Petrol Pump Circle-2(1)(1), Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan : Aabch 6766 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Pramod M. Jagtap, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad [Cit(A)] Dated 12.10.2017 & The Solitary Issue Relating To Disallowance Of Rs.15,52,172/- On Account Of Interest As Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) Is Raised Therein By Way Of The Following Original Grounds:- “Ground No.1 – Disallowance Of Rs.15,52,172/- Under Section 36(1)(Iii) Towards Capital Work In Progress (“Cwip”) 1. Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.15,52,172/- Under Section 36(1)(Iii) Of The Act On Account Of Expenditure Incurred By The Appellant On Cwip. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Considering The Facts That Expenditure Incurred On Cwip Ay 2013-14 Havmor Ice Cream Ltd. Vs. Dcit 2

capital, reserves and surplus to the extent of Rs.33.83 AY 2013-14 Havmor Ice Cream Ltd. vs. DCIT 13 crores and since the same were sufficient to acquire the assets in the form of CWIP of Rs.3.08 crores, there was no utilization of borrowed funds for acquisition of the said assets, it is observed that a similar stand was taken

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. DENISHA RAJENDRA KESHWANI, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.39/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dcit Smt. Denisha Rajendra बनाम/ Central Circle-1(1) Keshwani V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 009 44, Asopalav Bungalows Nr.Muktidham Temple Thaltej, Ahmedabad – 380 054 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahzpk 0889 K (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 22.01.2021, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Wherein The Cit(A) Has Deleted The Addition Of Rs.1,17,78,534/- Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1(1), Dcit Vs. Smt. Denisha Rajendra Keshwani Asst. Year : 2015-16

Section 68 of the Act, treating the Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of shares of Kappac Pharma Ltd. as non-genuine. The DR) has relied on the order of the AO, contending that the purchase was made offline and that the assessee has traded in only one share, which raises doubts regarding the genuineness of the transaction

SHAH JITENDRAKUMAR MAFATLAL HUF,ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gain on sale of shares of Safal Herbs Ltd, assessed the total income, without making any addition is and accepting the return of income as filed by the assessee. Therefore, evidently, the issue regarding accommodation entry regarding sale of shares of Safal herbs Ltd was to be enquired the course of original assessment proceedings and no additions were made

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI RAMESH GOBARJI THAKOR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor Ward-3 Sector 11 Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar. Pan : Aespt 3446 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

capital gain. Similarly for A.Y. 2010-11, the appellant has made available the copy of the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s.147 of the Act in the case of Smt. Hansaben M. Patel which also reflected the addition of Rs.33,36,89,804/- being the aggregated amounts credited in the bank account with Indian Bank, Navrangpura Branch, Ahmedabad

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

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

gain. No further inquiry has been held/conducted to find out the fair market value as on 1st April 1981. It is required to be noted that at the time of filing of original return, the assessee concerned has relied upon the report of the approved Valuer, considering the fair market value of the land in question as on 1st April

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

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

gain. No further inquiry has been held/conducted to find out the fair market value as on 1st April 1981. It is required to be noted that at the time of filing of original return, the assessee concerned has relied upon the report of the approved Valuer, considering the fair market value of the land in question as on 1st April

LALITADEVI N. TIBREWALA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 318/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Lalitadevi N. Tibrewala, Pr. Commissioner Of 6, Professor Colony, Vs. Income Tax, Nr. Vijay Cross Roads, Ahmedabad-5 Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aappt0073M

264 ITR 186 held as under : ". . .what is really indicated in the various decisions cited and in section 5 of the Limitation Act itself, is that a litigant would be required to explain why the appeal and/or application could not be filed within the period prescribed by limitation and explain the delay for such period for the purpose of linking

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gain. In that view of the matter, the impugned amount of 33.23 lakhas on account of interest income from other loans and advances and miscellaneous income of 9.46 lakhs are rightly been treated as income from other sources. We, therefore, quash the order passed by the ITA Nos.318&414/Ahd/2020 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst.Year