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

gains under section 45 of the Act, and distribution of new shares allotted by Sterling as being distributed by the assessee to its shareholders as dividend under section 2(22) of the Act. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR submitted as under:- • the assessee has not transferred the treasury undertaking

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

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 and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the income

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground

THE ACIT. CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDBAD vs. RAJENDRA HARJIVANDAS PRAJAPATI, AHMEDBAD

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

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

section 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business and capital gain. For the Asst. Year 2011-12, the assessee filed his Return of Income wherein assessment

RAJENDRA HARJIVANDAS PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

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

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

section 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business and capital gain. For the Asst. Year 2011-12, the assessee filed his Return of Income wherein assessment

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 115JB excluding indexation (iv) denying indexation leads to taxation of unreal income, contrary to the real income theory recognised by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC); and (v) specific provisions governing capital gains override the general MAT machinery. 33

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 115JB excluding indexation (iv) denying indexation leads to taxation of unreal income, contrary to the real income theory recognised by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC); and (v) specific provisions governing capital gains override the general MAT machinery. 33

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 115JB excluding indexation (iv) denying indexation leads to taxation of unreal income, contrary to the real income theory recognised by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC); and (v) specific provisions governing capital gains override the general MAT machinery. 33

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 115JB excluding indexation (iv) denying indexation leads to taxation of unreal income, contrary to the real income theory recognised by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC); and (v) specific provisions governing capital gains override the general MAT machinery. 33

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 115JB excluding indexation (iv) denying indexation leads to taxation of unreal income, contrary to the real income theory recognised by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC); and (v) specific provisions governing capital gains override the general MAT machinery. 33