SHRI GANPATBHAI JETHABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

269 Rs.1,56,785 8.2 Now the issue arises for our adjudication whether the Revenue can work out the capital gain differently in respect of the different co-owners of the same property. The answer is certainly in negative. At this juncture, we would like to make a reference to the judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court

SHRI ASHOKKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain of Rs. 79,10,832/- on sale of land situated at survey I.T.A No. 863/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 6 Ashokkumar Govindbhai Patel vs. ITO no. 174/1 moje Chandlodiya, Taluka City Ahmedabad. However, the Assessing Officer has taken sale consideration as per sale deed of Rs. 2,02,50,000/- instead

MR. PRANJAL PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, AHMEDABAD

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

capital gain on this land, the assessee has stated cost of land at Rs. 1,09,37,000/- and showed STCG of only Rs. 1,63,000/-. While furnishing details of cost of acquisition, the assessee has paid Rs. 26,22,400/- inclusive of premium of Rs. 20,97,600/- charged by government. Further, the assessee I.T.A No. 1357/Ahd/2017

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

269,062,228 238,043,115 — 2002-03 55,783,696 66,210,287 — 2003-04 1,608,659 2,248,

TANVI SANDEEP MATHUR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Capital Gain (STCG) comes to Rs.77,00,000/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer charged the assessee’s income to tax as STCG thereby not allowing the deduction of Rs.47,00,000/- claimed under Section 54 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

269/- C. Capital Gain – [as per Return of income] Rs. 11,37,32,825/- D. Income from other sources [as per Return of income] Rs. 80,07,21,966/- Assessed Income Rs.18,14,03,03,585/- Brought forward losses of Rs. 2,41,44,65,028, Rs. NIL for A.Y. 2013-14 Adjusted fully by the Dept. while passing order

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Capital Gains – sale of factory land rejection of fair market value as at 1.4.1981 adopted as per valuer’s report.” Ground No.1:- Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding salary and wages of packart press division of Rs. 28,78,876/- 50. We observe that while dealing similar ground of appeal for A.Y. 2011-12, we have set-aside the matter

THE ASST. CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Capital Gains – sale of factory land rejection of fair market value as at 1.4.1981 adopted as per valuer’s report.” Ground No.1:- Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding salary and wages of packart press division of Rs. 28,78,876/- 50. We observe that while dealing similar ground of appeal for A.Y. 2011-12, we have set-aside the matter

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Capital Gains – sale of factory land rejection of fair market value\nas at 1.4.1981 adopted as per valuer's report.\nوو\nGround No.1:- Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding salary and wages of\npackart press division of Rs.28,78,876/-\n50.\nWe observe that while dealing similar ground of appeal for A.Y.\n2011-12, we have set-aside the matter

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Capital Gains – sale of factory land rejection of fair market value\nas at 1.4.1981 adopted as per valuer's report.\nدو\nGround No.1:- Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding salary and wages of\npackart press division of Rs.28,78,876/-\n50. We observe that while dealing similar ground of appeal for A.Y.\n2011-12, we have set-aside the matter

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

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital assets. Thus, prior to the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021 the same has to be allowed by the Revenue. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the same and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Thus, Ground No. 1 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 8. Ground No. 2: Whether

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASIAN GRANITO INDIA LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

269) ELT 1081. Copy of the said decisions is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure – B- Colly. 8.By drawing inference to this decision, the Appellant most respectfully submits that merely by applying arithmetical formula of consumption of raw material to the production of tiles, suppressed production of tiles and in turn suppressed sale of tiles cannot be determined, without bringing

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASIAN GRANITO INDIA LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

269) ELT 1081. Copy of the said decisions is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure – B- Colly. 8.By drawing inference to this decision, the Appellant most respectfully submits that merely by applying arithmetical formula of consumption of raw material to the production of tiles, suppressed production of tiles and in turn suppressed sale of tiles cannot be determined, without bringing

ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ASHESH SIDHARTH AGARWAL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1004/Ahd/2018 (िनधार्रण वषर् / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer Shri Ashesh Sidharth Agarwal Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. D-804, Awari Flats, B/H Karnavati Bunglow, S. G. Highway, Satellite, Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afwpa2415A (अपीलाथीर् /Appellant) (प्र"यथीर् / Respondent) .. अपीलाथीर् ओर से /Appellant By : Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr.D.R. प्र"यथीर् की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of 07/09/2022 Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of 31/10/2022 Pronouncement

Section 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire dated 05.05.2014 was served upon the assessee. It appears that the AIR details consist of 107 entries for deposit of amount into the bank and entry for sale of immovable property whereupon assessee was directed to furnish the details, particularly, in regard to the long term capital gain earned on sale

M/S. NANDAN EXIM LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roynandam Exim Limited, Vs. Dcit, Survey No.198, 203/2, Saijpur – Circle – 3(1)(1), Gopalpur, Pirana Road, Piplaj Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad – 382 405. [Pan No. Aaacn 5327 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) ..

capital. It was observed from the profit and loss account that foreign exchange rate difference of Rs.44,18,355/- (net) was debited to the profit and loss account under manufacturing and operating expenses. As per the break up of this expense, assessee had incurred expense of Rs.45,12,971/- on foreign exchange fluctuation (FEF) on fixed asset at Sr. No.5

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Capital Infusion. 55. The TPO found that the assessee during the year has made payment of share application money to the following AEs: S. Name of AE Amount in Rs. Date of Date of share No. payment allotted 1 Zao Torrent Pharma 20,51,66,850/- 08-08-2012 28-03-2013 2 Zao Torrent Pharma

VIRANG JAYENDRABHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 24 of the Act was disallowed and added back to the taxable income of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has returned the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.16