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

32(1) and 36(1)(i) were thus not satisfied. ' 2.The CIT(A) has overlooked the findings/reasoning in the assessment order and deleted the addition mainly on the ground that funds for the purchase of cars were provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that dominion over the cars was not with the assessee

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

32(1) and 36(1)(i) were thus not satisfied. ' 2.The CIT(A) has overlooked the findings/reasoning in the assessment order and deleted the addition mainly on the ground that funds for the purchase of cars were provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that dominion over the cars was not with the assessee

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

32(1) and 36(1)(i) were thus not satisfied. ' 2.The CIT(A) has overlooked the findings/reasoning in the assessment order and deleted the addition mainly on the ground that funds for the purchase of cars were provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that dominion over the cars was not with the assessee

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

32(1) and 36(1)(i) were thus not satisfied. ' 2.The CIT(A) has overlooked the findings/reasoning in the assessment order and deleted the addition mainly on the ground that funds for the purchase of cars were provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that dominion over the cars was not with the assessee

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

32(1) and 36(1)(i) were thus not satisfied. ' 2.The CIT(A) has overlooked the findings/reasoning in the assessment order and deleted the addition mainly on the ground that funds for the purchase of cars were provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that dominion over the cars was not with the assessee

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHANDWALA INTEGRATED FINANCIAL SERVICES 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

32(1) and 36(1)(i) were thus not satisfied. ' 2.The CIT(A) has overlooked the findings/reasoning in the assessment order and deleted the addition mainly on the ground that funds for the purchase of cars were provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that dominion over the cars was not with the assessee

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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

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

32(1), (ii) Explanation 7 to Section 43(1), (iii) Explanation 2(b) to Section 43(6)(c), (iv) Section 55(2)(a)(ii) and (v) Section 49(1)(iii)(e) relied upon by the Assessing Officer for disallowing the claim of depreciation related to assets transferred in AIA Engineering Ltd - Cross Appeals AY : 2016-17 the scheme of amalgamation

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

capital expenditure or personal expenditure of the assessee, and (d) expenditure must be laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession. The expression “wholly” employed in section 37 refers to quantification of expenditure while expression “exclusively” refers to the motive, objective and purpose of the expenditure. 14. Thus, if the nature of this expenditure