JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

capital gains tax by virtue of various clauses forming a part of Section 47 of the IT Act subjected to the applications of provisions of Section 2(19AA) of the Act. It is also settled position of law that the scheme of demerger once approved by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, it cannot be re-visited by any statutory

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI MAHESH SOMABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

28, Anurag Bunglow, Nr. B.R. Park, Science City, Sola, Ahmedabad-380061 (Appellant) PAN: ACCPP4215C (Respondent) Revenue Represented: Smt. Malarkodi. R. Sr. D.R. Assessee Represented: Shri Anil Kshatriya, Advocate Date of hearing : 26-03-2024 Date of pronouncement : 19-06-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Revenue as against the appellate order

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI KAILASH RAMAVATAR GOENKA, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital gains year-wise as computed and directed by the CIT(A). B. Grounds relating to Addition in respect of Internal Circulation of Funds and Unaccounted Receipts and Payments 15. The issue involved under these grounds pertain to unaccounted cash receipts and unaccounted cash payments, as reflected in the seized documents during the search operation. The AO made substantial additions

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts are that the assessee, alongwith Shri Nagarji Thakore sold land bearing Block No. 325 at Ambli to “Jayesh Kotak” and “Pravin Kotak” for Rs. 50,00,000/- and declared capital gain of Rs. 16,28

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts are that the assessee, alongwith Shri Nagarji Thakore sold land bearing Block No. 325 at Ambli to “Jayesh Kotak” and “Pravin Kotak” for Rs. 50,00,000/- and declared capital gain of Rs. 16,28

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts are that the assessee, alongwith Shri Nagarji Thakore sold land bearing Block No. 325 at Ambli to “Jayesh Kotak” and “Pravin Kotak” for Rs. 50,00,000/- and declared capital gain of Rs. 16,28

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts are that the assessee, alongwith Shri Nagarji Thakore sold land bearing Block No. 325 at Ambli to “Jayesh Kotak” and “Pravin Kotak” for Rs. 50,00,000/- and declared capital gain of Rs. 16,28

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts are that the assessee, alongwith Shri Nagarji Thakore sold land bearing Block No. 325 at Ambli to “Jayesh Kotak” and “Pravin Kotak” for Rs. 50,00,000/- and declared capital gain of Rs. 16,28

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts are that the assessee, alongwith Shri Nagarji Thakore sold land bearing Block No. 325 at Ambli to “Jayesh Kotak” and “Pravin Kotak” for Rs. 50,00,000/- and declared capital gain of Rs. 16,28

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts are that the assessee, alongwith Shri Nagarji Thakore sold land bearing Block No. 325 at Ambli to “Jayesh Kotak” and “Pravin Kotak” for Rs. 50,00,000/- and declared capital gain of Rs. 16,28

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts are that the assessee, alongwith Shri Nagarji Thakore sold land bearing Block No. 325 at Ambli to “Jayesh Kotak” and “Pravin Kotak” for Rs. 50,00,000/- and declared capital gain of Rs. 16,28

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts are that the assessee, alongwith Shri Nagarji Thakore sold land bearing Block No. 325 at Ambli to “Jayesh Kotak” and “Pravin Kotak” for Rs. 50,00,000/- and declared capital gain of Rs. 16,28

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

gains of business or profession", as per the provisions of the Act. 42. But, Section 36(1)(iii) makes a distinction. The amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession is allowed as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii), in computing the income referred to in Section 28

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

gains of business or profession", as per the provisions of the Act. 42. But, Section 36(1)(iii) makes a distinction. The amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession is allowed as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii), in computing the income referred to in Section 28

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

gains of business or profession", as per the provisions of the Act. 42. But, Section 36(1)(iii) makes a distinction. The amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession is allowed as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii), in computing the income referred to in Section 28

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

gains of business or profession", as per the provisions of the Act. 42. But, Section 36(1)(iii) makes a distinction. The amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession is allowed as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii), in computing the income referred to in Section 28

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital gain on sale of shares by assessee was an arranged affair to convert its own unaccounted money and thus, exemption claimed under section 10(38) on sale of shares had rightly been disallowed. 25. In view of the above judicial precedents as applied in the assessee set of facts as discussed in the preceding paragraphs

SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital gain on sale of shares by assessee was an arranged affair to convert its own unaccounted money and thus, exemption claimed under section 10(38) on sale of shares had rightly been disallowed. 25. In view of the above judicial precedents as applied in the assessee set of facts as discussed in the preceding paragraphs