KUM. NALINI SURRENDRABHAI PATEL,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain on 20.7.2009 and declared a total income of Rs.1,09,210/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, and thereafter taken for scrutiny assessment and notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were served upon the assessee. The assessee submitted various details as are required under the notice

SANDEEP MOHANRAJ SINGHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE4(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 12AA of the Act. The assessee had received 80,00,000 numbers of equity shares of e-Infochips Limited as corpus donation from its trustee Shri Pratul Krishnakant Shroff on 12.12.2017. Thereafter, all the shares of e-Infochips Limited, including those held by the assessee, were acquired by Arrow Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as “Arrow”). Arrow

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

Section 12AA of the Act. The assessee\nhad received 80,00,000 numbers of equity shares of e-Infochips\nLimited as corpus donation from its trustee Shri Pratul Krishnakant\nShroff on 12.12.2017. Thereafter, all the shares of e-Infochips\nLimited, including those held by the assessee, were acquired by\nArrow Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as “Arrow”).\nArrow

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

Section 12AA of the Act. The assessee\nhad received 80,00,000 numbers of equity shares of e-Infochips\nLimited as corpus donation from its trustee Shri Pratul Krishnakant\nShroff on 12.12.2017. Thereafter, all the shares of e-Infochips\nLimited, including those held by the assessee, were acquired by\nArrow Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as “Arrow”).\nArrow

MODERN CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

capital gain. And\nthere was no question of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO\ntherefore u/s 153C of the Act being not in accordance with law.\n12. Reference was made to various case laws by both the sides and\nsubmissions in writing were filed by both the parties. The same are\nbeing reproduced hereunder:\nSubmissions of the assessee in this

THE UNITED BUILDERS CORPORATION ,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

capital gain. And\nthere was no question of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO\ntherefore u/s 153C of the Act being not in accordance with law.\n12. Reference was made to various case laws by both the sides and\nsubmissions in writing were filed by both the parties. The same are\nbeing reproduced hereunder:\nSubmissions of the assessee in this

THE MODERN CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(4), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

capital gain. And\nthere was no question of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO\ntherefore u/s 153C of the Act being not in accordance with law.\n12. Reference was made to various case laws by both the sides and\nsubmissions in writing were filed by both the parties. The same are\nbeing reproduced hereunder:\nSubmissions of the assessee in this

DCIT, CIR.4(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LALITBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

302 ITR 255 Delhi) As mentioned above, in all these cases, it has been held that a tight created by agreement to sale is an enforceable right, therefore, it is capital asset u/s 2(14) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the findings of the A.O. that the appellant did not have any right in property as per section

DCIT, CIR, 4(2), AHMEDABAD vs. BHARATKUMAR BABUBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

302 ITR 255 Delhi) As mentioned above, in all these cases, it has been held that a tight created by agreement to sale is an enforceable right, therefore, it is capital asset u/s 2(14) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the findings of the A.O. that the appellant did not have any right in property as per section

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 397/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Dcit Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 532/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Acit, Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr Dr & Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

capital gain tax. Furthermore, the 6th proviso to section 32 of the Act has limited the amount of depreciation available to the amalgamated company post amalgamation to the extent of the amount of depreciation which would have been available to the amalgamating company, had there not been any amalgamation. Indeed there was no entry in the books of the transferor/amalgamating

ROHIT PRAKASHCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of shares. Based on this information, the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act by the AO, after recording the reason and obtaining approval of the competent authority. Accordingly, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2021. The assessee had objected to the reopening

THE DCIT, CIR-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

302 (SC for its claim of depreciation on goodwill. However, the A.O. has not accepted the contention of the appellant and has proceeded to disallow the quantum of depreciation i.e. Rs. 23,03,33,782/- claimed by the appellant on goodwill. It is seen that the appellant has claimed depreciation on goodwill of Rs. 92.14 crores resulting

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

302 (SC for its claim of depreciation on goodwill. However, the A.O. has not accepted the contention of the appellant and has proceeded to disallow the quantum of depreciation i.e. Rs. 23,03,33,782/- claimed by the appellant on goodwill. It is seen that the appellant has claimed depreciation on goodwill of Rs. 92.14 crores resulting

JT. CTI (OSD), CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

302 (SC for its claim of depreciation on goodwill. However, the A.O. has not accepted the contention of the appellant and has proceeded to disallow the quantum of depreciation i.e. Rs. 23,03,33,782/- claimed by the appellant on goodwill. It is seen that the appellant has claimed depreciation on goodwill of Rs. 92.14 crores resulting

NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

302 (SC for its claim of depreciation on goodwill. However, the A.O. has not accepted the contention of the appellant and has proceeded to disallow the quantum of depreciation i.e. Rs. 23,03,33,782/- claimed by the appellant on goodwill. It is seen that the appellant has claimed depreciation on goodwill of Rs. 92.14 crores resulting

BAKERI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee on this ground are allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

302 (SC). The subsequent decisions by various High Courts and Tribunal including of Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of Nirma Ltd. vs. DCIT dated 30-06-2025 has categorically mentioned as follows:- “6.2 We find that the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of United Breweries Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 76 taxmann.com 103 while appreciating the findings of the Supreme Court

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-\n13 & 2013-14 filed by the assessee are partly allowed, while the appeal of the assessee\nfor AY 2014-15 is allowed

302 (SC for its claim of depreciation on goodwill. However, the A.O. has\nnot accepted the contention of the appellant and has proceeded to disallow the\nquantum of depreciation i.e. Rs.23,03,33,782/- claimed by the appellant on\ngoodwill.\nIt is seen that the appellant has claimed depreciation on goodwill of Rs.92.14\ncrores resulting out of the amalgamation agreement

NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

302, SC), and the subsequent\namendment by Finance Act, 2021, recorded the following findings\nat paras 6.3 to 6.6:\n6.3 We also find that in the case of Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., the\nHon'ble High Court of Mumbai has followed Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nthe case of Smifs Securities Ltd. In the present case under\nconsideration