SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

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

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

Capital Gain. The assessee sold a residential house on I.T.A No. 324/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 3 Shri Jignesh Jaysukhlal Ghiya. vs. DCIT 09.01.2013 for Rs.45,00,000/- and then purchased a unfinished flat for Rs.25,60,000/- on 17.02.2014 and the sale considerations were paid between 04.08.2011 to 08.12.2011 (much before the sale of the original property

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)

3 – manufacturing pharmaceutical products, such as, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, pain management, biological, anti-infective, diagnostics, female healthcare, respiratory and other therapeutic drugs filed its return of income on 30.11.2016 declaring income at Rs.9,41,44,39,440/-. The return was duly processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Upon selection for scrutiny under CASS, as there was international transaction

AJAY REGHUBHAI BHARWAD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

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

3. The capital asset was sold for Rs.44,82,000/- (for a consideration). 4. There is profit or gain on the said transaction. In the light of the above facts, there is no difficulty in computing Capital gain as per sec.45 & 48 of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad (SB) in the case of Dr. B.V. Raju (18 taxmann.com

SHRI AJAY REGHUBHAI BHARWAD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

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

3. The capital asset was sold for Rs.44,82,000/- (for a consideration). 4. There is profit or gain on the said transaction. In the light of the above facts, there is no difficulty in computing Capital gain as per sec.45 & 48 of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad (SB) in the case of Dr. B.V. Raju (18 taxmann.com

SHRI PIYUSH M DOBARIYA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(4), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

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

3. The capital asset was sold for Rs.44,82,000/- (for a consideration). 4. There is profit or gain on the said transaction. In the light of the above facts, there is no difficulty in computing Capital gain as per sec.45 & 48 of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad (SB) in the case of Dr. B.V. Raju (18 taxmann.com

RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD.,),HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

3– “Ground No. 1: Levy of capital gains under section 45 of the Act considering demerger of the treasury undertaking

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

3– “Ground No. 1: Levy of capital gains under section 45 of the Act considering demerger of the treasury undertaking

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 1 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. BHARAT LAKHAJI NANDWANA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

3– the period of holding of the previous owner i.e. the trust should be considered while computing capital gains in terms of section

DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

capital gains on transfer of 80,00,000\nshares of e-Infochips Limited. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, upheld the denial\nof exemption under Section 11 & 12 of the Act by invoking the provisions\nof Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(3

ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

capital gains on transfer of 80,00,000\nshares of e-Infochips Limited. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, upheld the denial\nof exemption under Section 11 & 12 of the Act by invoking the provisions\nof Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(3

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

Section 69C. The CIT(A) dealt with the issue of capital gains comprehensively by analysing the unaccounted receipts from the sale of capital assets and the corresponding unaccounted expenditures incurred by the assessee. The CIT(A) examined capital gains arising from the properties such as Land at Shilpgram 651 (Short-Term and Long-Term Gains), Land at Khoraj (Long-Term

RAVINDRABHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5) NOW ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Ito Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Vs. Ward-1(2)(5). Patel Now Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) 86,Kanha Residency Vadodara – 390 007 Kalali Road, Kalali Ahmedabad – 390 012 [Pan : Aigpp 8415 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Assessee Represented By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

capital gains and income from other sources. For Assessment Year 2015–16, the assessee filed his return of income on 18.03.2016 under section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act declaring a total income of Rs.78,36,110/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD vs. JHAVERI SANDEEP BIPINCHANDRA (HUF), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2016-17 Jhaveri Sandeep Income Tax Officer, Vs. Bipinchandra (Huf), Ward-5(3)(1), 21, Crest Nutan Laxmi Soc., Ahmedabad 9Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400049 Pan : Aachj 0855 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Pune-12 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 24.08.2023 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 Raised By The Department Reads As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Treating The Income Of Rs. 54,49,539/- As Short Term Capital Gain Instead Of Business Income.” 3. The Issue Raised In The Above Ground Relates To The Short Term Capital Gain Returned By The Assessee, On The Transactions Of Dealing In Shares, As Ito Vs Jhaveri Sandeep Bipinchandra Huf Ay : 2016-17 2

3)(1), 21, Crest Nutan Laxmi Soc., Ahmedabad 9th Road, JVPD Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400049 PAN : AACHJ 0855 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee by : Shri Deepak Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 10.05.2024 आदेश

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)

capital gain shown by the assessee. Likewise we also note that the assessee has discharged the onus imposed under section 68 of the Act by furnishing the necessary documentary evidence in support of the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the parties. Therefore the same cannot be made subject to tax under the provisions of section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block No. 485A of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- on account of undisclosed amount of capital gain on Block No. 485A which has been added without

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block No. 485A of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- on account of undisclosed amount of capital gain on Block No. 485A which has been added without

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block No. 485A of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- on account of undisclosed amount of capital gain on Block No. 485A which has been added without

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block No. 485A of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- on account of undisclosed amount of capital gain on Block No. 485A which has been added without