KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

capital gain and to tax at the rate prescribed u/s. 111A of the Act. Your appellant craves liberty to add, to alter, to modify, to amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of on or before the hearing of appeal. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

capital gain and to tax at the rate prescribed u/s. 111A of the Act. Your appellant craves liberty to add, to alter, to modify, to amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of on or before the hearing of appeal. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

capital gain and to tax at the rate prescribed u/s. 111A of the Act. Your appellant craves liberty to add, to alter, to modify, to amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of on or before the hearing of appeal. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS SECURITIES LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

capital gain and to tax at the rate prescribed u/s. 111A of the Act. Your appellant craves liberty to add, to alter, to modify, to amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of on or before the hearing of appeal. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

capital gain and to tax at the rate prescribed u/s. 111A of the Act. Your appellant craves liberty to add, to alter, to modify, to amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of on or before the hearing of appeal. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

capital gain and to tax at the rate prescribed u/s. 111A of the Act. Your appellant craves liberty to add, to alter, to modify, to amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of on or before the hearing of appeal. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

gains arising on transfer of a : capita! asset acquired by the assessee under a gift, the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset and not the year in which the assessee became the owner of the asset. " On this issue, as pointed out earlier

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

gains have been included in the other income. Provision for diminution in value of investment has been added back in the computation. Further, the assessee has itself added back Rs.20 lakhs u/s.14A on estimate basis in respect of tax free income earned on such investment. No deduction has been claimed under section 88E for the securities transaction tax paid during

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

gains have been included in the other income. Provision for diminution in value of investment has been added back in the computation. Further, the assessee has itself added back Rs.20 lakhs u/s.14A on estimate basis in respect of tax free income earned on such investment. No deduction has been claimed under section 88E for the securities transaction tax paid during

THA ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

gains have been included in the other income. Provision for diminution in value of investment has been added back in the computation. Further, the assessee has itself added back Rs.20 lakhs u/s.14A on estimate basis in respect of tax free income earned on such investment. No deduction has been claimed under section 88E for the securities transaction tax paid during

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

gains have been included in the other income. Provision for diminution in value of investment has been added back in the computation. Further, the assessee has itself added back Rs.20 lakhs u/s.14A on estimate basis in respect of tax free income earned on such investment. No deduction has been claimed under section 88E for the securities transaction tax paid during

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

gains have been included in the other income. Provision for diminution in value of investment has been added back in the computation. Further, the assessee has itself added back Rs.20 lakhs u/s.14A on estimate basis in respect of tax free income earned on such investment. No deduction has been claimed under section 88E for the securities transaction tax paid during

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

gains have been included in the other income. Provision for diminution in value of investment has been added back in the computation. Further, the assessee has itself added back Rs.20 lakhs u/s.14A on estimate basis in respect of tax free income earned on such investment. No deduction has been claimed under section 88E for the securities transaction tax paid during

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

gains have been included in the other income. Provision for diminution in value of investment has been added back in the computation. Further, the assessee has itself added back Rs.20 lakhs u/s.14A on estimate basis in respect of tax free income earned on such investment. No deduction has been claimed under section 88E for the securities transaction tax paid during

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI KETAN V. SHAH,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Itano.3288/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014

capital gain income from the listed securities amounting to Rs. 82,32,625/- which was claimed as exempt under section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. PRATHAM INVESTMENTS,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 76/Ahd/2015 & 9/Ahd/2017 & I.T.A. No. 3087/Ahd/2016 (In I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016) & ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

gain on such conversion is in question. CIT(A) has appreciated the issue in correct legal perspective and in in sync with host of judgments holding the field in this regard. Therefore, there is no perceptible reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 7. Pertinently, we also take note of the clause (via) to Section

M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 76/Ahd/2015 & 9/Ahd/2017 & I.T.A. No. 3087/Ahd/2016 (In I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016) & ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

gain on such conversion is in question. CIT(A) has appreciated the issue in correct legal perspective and in in sync with host of judgments holding the field in this regard. Therefore, there is no perceptible reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 7. Pertinently, we also take note of the clause (via) to Section

M/S. CHANDAN INFRATECH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

section 111A /112 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 4. The learned CIT (A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO by holding that true picture of transactions were not shown on the ground that appellant was not following FIFO method for calculating gain or loss for sale of shares. 5. Without prejudice