SANJAYBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain. Search action under Section 142 of the Act was carried out in the group case of Shayona Group on 15.10.2013 in which documents showing to a land transaction was found which pertained to all partners of the firm M/s. Shayona Land Corporation. The residence of premises of all the partners were covered under search action except that

BHAVANJI JUGAJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

270/-. The same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the case was selected for limited scrutiny in respect of the following reasons:- 1. Whether value of consideration for computation of capital gains

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. REKHA INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 10(38) on sale of shares had rightly been disallowed. The ITAT made the following relevant observations, while dismissing the appeal of the assessee on this issue: Thus, the contention of the assessee that the transaction leading to long- term capital gains are supported by documents of sale and purchase, bank statement etc., cannot be accepted keeping in view

REKHABEN INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 10(38) on sale of shares had rightly been disallowed. The ITAT made the following relevant observations, while dismissing the appeal of the assessee on this issue: Thus, the contention of the assessee that the transaction leading to long- term capital gains are supported by documents of sale and purchase, bank statement etc., cannot be accepted keeping in view

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

gains as on the date of balance sheet date. Moreover, marked to market losses are contingent in nature as they arise out of the past contracts entered into by the assessee and whether they will actually occur or not cannot be reliable estimated until the occurrence of future uncertain events which is beyond the control of the assessee. The assessee

DEVRAJ BUILDERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

270/- was claimed under the head “Site Miscellaneous Expenses in Profit & Loss Account”. The PCIT observed that as per Section 37(1) of the Act, any expenditure, not being expenditure of the nature described under Sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out expended wholly or exclusively

URMIN PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

gain control over the business in the company in which the shares were purchased. The Supreme Court held that the purpose for which the shares were purchased was inconsequential. As long as such investment generated tax free income, disallowance of expenditure for making such investment would be justified. This issue does not arise in the present case. However

URMIN PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

gain control over the business in the company in which the shares were purchased. The Supreme Court held that the purpose for which the shares were purchased was inconsequential. As long as such investment generated tax free income, disallowance of expenditure for making such investment would be justified. This issue does not arise in the present case. However

JIGNASA ATULKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Gain exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act amounting to Rs.37,24,755/-. Therefore a show cause notice u/s. 148 of the Act issued on 29-03-2022. 2.1. In response, the assessee filed Return of Income on 12-04-2022. Since the Return of Income was electronically not verified, the same was treated as invalid. However notices

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

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

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

270 CTR 66 [Guj] and Bombay High Court judgement in the case of Pruthvi Brokers reported in 349 ITR 336 [Bmy] and the LTCL is to be allowed. Per contra Ld CIT DR supported the order passed by the CIT[A]. 16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The judgements relied

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)

270 CTR 66 [Guj] and Bombay High Court judgement in the case of Pruthvi Brokers reported in 349 ITR 336 [Bmy] and the LTCL is to be allowed. Per contra Ld CIT DR supported the order passed by the CIT[A]. 16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The judgements relied

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

270 (Mum); 28. Per contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the cases were reopened by the AO after following the due process of law and 27 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. obtaining the prior approval of the Pr. CIT as stipulated under

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

270 (Mum); 28. Per contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the cases were reopened by the AO after following the due process of law and 27 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. obtaining the prior approval of the Pr. CIT as stipulated under

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

270 (Mum); 28. Per contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the cases were reopened by the AO after following the due process of law and 27 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. obtaining the prior approval of the Pr. CIT as stipulated under

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

270 (Mum); 28. Per contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the cases were reopened by the AO after following the due process of law and 27 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. obtaining the prior approval of the Pr. CIT as stipulated under

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

270 (Mum); 28. Per contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the cases were reopened by the AO after following the due process of law and 27 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. obtaining the prior approval of the Pr. CIT as stipulated under

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

270 (Mum); 28. Per contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the cases were reopened by the AO after following the due process of law and 27 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. obtaining the prior approval of the Pr. CIT as stipulated under

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

270 (Mum); 28. Per contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the cases were reopened by the AO after following the due process of law and 27 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. obtaining the prior approval of the Pr. CIT as stipulated under