SANJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI MALI,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

Capital Gain and final assessment is as income from other sources is illegal and bad in Law and Void. III On Interest u/s. 234 1. The CITA) has erred both in Law and in Fact in upholding charging of Interest us 234A of Rs. 36,366 and u/s 234B of Rs. 18,874/- which is not chargeable both on point

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SANJAY PRATAPRAI MEHTA, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

366 of 2023, involving identical facts and circumstances has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue at the admission stage, meaning thereby the order of the Tribunal was upheld. Thus, in view of the above discussion, we hold that the capital gain earned by the assessee cannot be held bogus merely DCIT vs. Sanjay Prataprai Mehta Asst.Year –2014-15 - 8– based

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR vs. SHRI VALLABHBHAI DHANJIBHAI PATEL, BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: The Tribunal On

Capital Gain of Rs. 6,99,62,674/- in the hands of the assessee and demanded tax thereon. 5. Aggrieved against the re-assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition by passing a very detailed order considering section 43 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy law) and the land

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

366 (Aid) for the legal proposition that the assessee could have otherwise avoided its liability of interest by not giving interest free funds to its ITA Nos.318&414/Ahd/2020 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst.Year– 2016-17 group concerns. The addition in the question was thus made by the AO in the following conclusion. "In view of the above

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital receipts" as per the settled legal precedents. 2. Without prejudice to all the grounds raised, in law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Assessee’s own case, the Appellant craves that no R & D expenditure including development cost should be allocated to industrial

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

366 (Aid) for the legal proposition that the assessee could have otherwise avoided its liability of interest by not giving interest free funds to its group concerns. The addition in the question was thus made by the AO in the following conclusion. "In view of the above discussion and provision of law, the interest attributable to the investment

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

366 (Aid) for the legal proposition that the assessee could have otherwise avoided its liability of interest by not giving interest free funds to its group concerns. The addition in the question was thus made by the AO in the following conclusion. "In view of the above discussion and provision of law, the interest attributable to the investment

LOK PRAKASHAN LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed accordingly

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.290 & 291/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively Lok Prakashan Limited The Acit बनाम/ Gujarat Samachar Bhavan Central Circle-1(3) V/S. J.P. Chowk, Khanpur Ahmedabad – 380 009 Ahmedabad – 380 001 (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) ('( यथ%/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacl 2742 F

capital expenses and deleting the same without appreciating the facts contained in the assessment order 2. ln the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in partly allowing total relief of Rs.13,87,03,1991 out of total disallowance of Rs.24,32,35,877/- u/s 14A without appreciating

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S LOK PRAKASHAN LTD., AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed accordingly

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.290 & 291/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively Lok Prakashan Limited The Acit बनाम/ Gujarat Samachar Bhavan Central Circle-1(3) V/S. J.P. Chowk, Khanpur Ahmedabad – 380 009 Ahmedabad – 380 001 (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) ('( यथ%/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacl 2742 F

capital expenses and deleting the same without appreciating the facts contained in the assessment order 2. ln the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in partly allowing total relief of Rs.13,87,03,1991 out of total disallowance of Rs.24,32,35,877/- u/s 14A without appreciating

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S LOK PRAKASHAN LTD., AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed accordingly

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.290 & 291/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively Lok Prakashan Limited The Acit बनाम/ Gujarat Samachar Bhavan Central Circle-1(3) V/S. J.P. Chowk, Khanpur Ahmedabad – 380 009 Ahmedabad – 380 001 (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) ('( यथ%/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacl 2742 F

capital expenses and deleting the same without appreciating the facts contained in the assessment order 2. ln the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in partly allowing total relief of Rs.13,87,03,1991 out of total disallowance of Rs.24,32,35,877/- u/s 14A without appreciating

LOK PRAKASHAN LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed accordingly

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.290 & 291/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively Lok Prakashan Limited The Acit बनाम/ Gujarat Samachar Bhavan Central Circle-1(3) V/S. J.P. Chowk, Khanpur Ahmedabad – 380 009 Ahmedabad – 380 001 (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) ('( यथ%/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacl 2742 F

capital expenses and deleting the same without appreciating the facts contained in the assessment order 2. ln the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in partly allowing total relief of Rs.13,87,03,1991 out of total disallowance of Rs.24,32,35,877/- u/s 14A without appreciating

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

capital expenditure with a direction to withdraw depreciation already allowed. The ld.Sr.DR supported the order of the AO. On the contrary, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no illegality in the order of the ld.CIT(). He submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case

M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

capital expenditure with a direction to withdraw depreciation already allowed. The ld.Sr.DR supported the order of the AO. On the contrary, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no illegality in the order of the ld.CIT(). He submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

366 (Del.) 3. Gurpal Singh vs. ITO, 159 ITD 797 (Amritsar) 4. Amrik Singh vs. ITO, 159 ITD 329 (Amritsar) (B) Reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction: – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the cases were reopened merely on the basis of the details received from the FT&TR Division of CBDT and there was no independent application of mind

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

366 (Del.) 3. Gurpal Singh vs. ITO, 159 ITD 797 (Amritsar) 4. Amrik Singh vs. ITO, 159 ITD 329 (Amritsar) (B) Reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction: – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the cases were reopened merely on the basis of the details received from the FT&TR Division of CBDT and there was no independent application of mind

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEHAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

366 (Del.) 3. Gurpal Singh vs. ITO, 159 ITD 797 (Amritsar) 4. Amrik Singh vs. ITO, 159 ITD 329 (Amritsar) (B) Reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction: – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the cases were reopened merely on the basis of the details received from the FT&TR Division of CBDT and there was no independent application of mind

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

366 (Del.) 3. Gurpal Singh vs. ITO, 159 ITD 797 (Amritsar) 4. Amrik Singh vs. ITO, 159 ITD 329 (Amritsar) (B) Reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction: – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the cases were reopened merely on the basis of the details received from the FT&TR Division of CBDT and there was no independent application of mind

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

366 (Del.) 3. Gurpal Singh vs. ITO, 159 ITD 797 (Amritsar) 4. Amrik Singh vs. ITO, 159 ITD 329 (Amritsar) (B) Reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction: – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the cases were reopened merely on the basis of the details received from the FT&TR Division of CBDT and there was no independent application of mind

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

366 (Del.) 3. Gurpal Singh vs. ITO, 159 ITD 797 (Amritsar) 4. Amrik Singh vs. ITO, 159 ITD 329 (Amritsar) (B) Reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction: – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the cases were reopened merely on the basis of the details received from the FT&TR Division of CBDT and there was no independent application of mind