DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

275 Taxman 550 (Karnataka) / [2020] 428 ITR 52 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon’ble Court held that by virtue of section 115JB(5), all other provisions of the Act— including those governing computation of long-term capital gains

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

275 Taxman 550 (Karnataka) / [2020] 428 ITR 52 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon’ble Court held that by virtue of section 115JB(5), all other provisions of the Act— including those governing computation of long-term capital gains

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

275 Taxman 550 (Karnataka) / [2020] 428 ITR 52 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon’ble Court held that by virtue of section 115JB(5), all other provisions of the Act— including those governing computation of long-term capital gains

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

275 Taxman 550 (Karnataka) / [2020] 428 ITR 52 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon’ble Court held that by virtue of section 115JB(5), all other provisions of the Act— including those governing computation of long-term capital gains

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

275/- being 50% of Rs. 1,24,72,950/-. The assessee has credited to profit and account by sale consideration of Rs. 6236475/-. (ii) From the assets of the balance sheet for AY 2012-13 that there was an agricultural land amounting to Rs. 1,73,25,167/- (including land purchased during the year R.S. no. 665/P/1

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT , BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

275 Taxman\n550 (Karnataka) / [2020] 428 ITR 52 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon'ble\nCourt held that by virtue of section 115JB(5), all other provisions of the Act—\nincluding those governing computation of long-term capital gains

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

275 Taxman\n550 (Karnataka) / [2020] 428 ITR 52 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon'ble\nCourt held that by virtue of section 115JB(5), all other provisions of the Act—\nincluding those governing computation of long-term capital gains

ROMABEN KEYUR THAKORE LEGAL HEIR OF LATE ANANDIBEN JITENDRABHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Confirmed The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer By Observing As Follows:

section 54F, and had produced all relevant documentary evidence including sale deed, purchase deed and contractor's confirmation. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.…” 5. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that during the course of reassessment proceedings, vide submission dated

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. KETABEN JANAKBHAI PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital gain taking value given by Valuation Officer under Section50C, even though it is lesser than value adopted by stamp valuation Authority. In the case of Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar 30 taxmann.com 293 (Allahabad), the High Court held that where assessee had sold a property and Assessing Officer after rejecting valuation of property submitted by assessee referred matter

SHRENIK HIRALAL SHAH,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(3), VADODARA

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

capital gain under section 50C of the Act which is nothing but a deeming provision. Limitation u/s 275: 6) The learned

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), Virtual 400 ITR 409 and 370 ITR 547 (SC). The Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), Virtual 400 ITR 409 and 370 ITR 547 (SC). The Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), Virtual 400 ITR 409 and 370 ITR 547 (SC). The Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), Virtual 400 ITR 409 and 370 ITR 547 (SC). The Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision

PUNITA KALPESH PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

capital gains tax rates (15% for STCG u/s 111A or 20% for LTCG). Allowing loss set-off would still enable avoidance, undermining the revenue's interest. The provision's use of "dividend or income" encompasses all amounts received, as held in analogous contexts by courts (e.g.. CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers

VINODBHAI LAXMANBHAI PITHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY THE ITO- WARD-1(2)(5)), VADODARA

In the result, this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains or losses arising from such sale of shares. In the retraction statement, the assessee submitted that he had started the business of purchase and sale of shares during the impugned assessment year and the assessee had valued his closing stock of shares of public companies on the basis of “cost or market whichever is lower” and on such

VEENITA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

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

gain of Rs. 1.33 crores by way of sale of share of such company. 12. This was again affirmed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Sanjay Baulal Surana [2021] 129 taxmann.com 375 (Gujarat). 13. Accordingly, in our view, the Assessing Officer had sufficient material to form a prima facie belief that the assessee had introduced own unaccounted

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