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

36(l)(vii), 28(ii)(c). The phrase 'wholly and exclusively for the purposes of has been used in sections 37 and 57(iii). On going through the use of the above and other similar expressions in different parts of the Act, it is clearly borne out that these have not been used interchangeably. The Legislature is fully conscious

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

36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs.42.20 lacs was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 5.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs. 7.89 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section 194Ion

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

36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs.42.20 lacs was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 5.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs. 7.89 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section 194Ion

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

36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs.42.20 lacs was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 5.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs. 7.89 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section 194Ion

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

36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs.42.20 lacs was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 5.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs. 7.89 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section 194Ion

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

36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs.42.20 lacs was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 5.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs. 7.89 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section 194Ion

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

36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs.42.20 lacs was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 5.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs. 7.89 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section 194Ion

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

36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs.42.20 lacs was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 5.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs. 7.89 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section 194Ion

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

36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs.42.20 lacs was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 5.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs. 7.89 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section 194Ion

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

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

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

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

36 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 exchange in India immediately prior to such demutualization or corporatization. 92. Moving forward, we also note that Section 50 of the Act is a special provision for computing capital gains in case of depreciable assets. It begins with a non-obstante

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

36 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 exchange in India immediately prior to such demutualization or corporatization. 92. Moving forward, we also note that Section 50 of the Act is a special provision for computing capital gains in case of depreciable assets. It begins with a non-obstante

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

36 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 exchange in India immediately prior to such demutualization or corporatization. 92. Moving forward, we also note that Section 50 of the Act is a special provision for computing capital gains in case of depreciable assets. It begins with a non-obstante

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)

gains arising from conversion of trading asset into capital asset is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Aditya Medisales Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 197 (Guj) and the decision of the co-ordinate bench in ACIT vs. Bright Star Investments

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)

gains arising from conversion of trading asset into capital asset is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Aditya Medisales Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 197 (Guj) and the decision of the co-ordinate bench in ACIT vs. Bright Star Investments

HARSHADKUMAR AMRUTLAL PATEL,MEHSANA vs. DCIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 361/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

capital gain of Rs. 1,36,21,351/- in the return of income which has arisen out of sale ITA No. 361/Ahd/19 [Harshadkumar A. Patel vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 5 - of the land at Revenue Survey No.1.719 Sim of Panchot, Mehsana which was sold on 27.11.2014 through sale deed No.MSN/10750/2014 for the total sale consideration of Rs.12

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GOLDMINE STOCKS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T, M/S Goldmine Stocks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3, Room No.109, 4, Niranjan Nirakar Society, Vs. ‘B’ Wing, 1St Floor, Shreyas Railways Crossing, Pratyakshyakar Bhawan, Paldi, Panjrapole, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380005. Ahmedabad Pan: Aaacg5445N

gain from the business are chargeable to tax under chapter IV of the Act. Thus the assessee is eligible for the deduction of all the expenses/losses incurred in the course of the business. After that, the assessee can determine the income chargeable to tax under the head business and profession. In this regard, we find support and guidance from

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

gain as is equal to the amount, if any, by which the appropriate fraction of the amount utilised for acquiring the new asset exceeds the appropriate fraction of the cost of the transferred asset. Explanation.—In this sub-section,— (i) “appropriate fraction” means the fraction which represents the extent to which the income derived from the capital asset transferred