M/S. VISHAL ENGINEERS & GALVANIZERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

40,31,218/- on the basis of valuation report made by the Government Registered Valuer whereby and whereunder the said property was valued at Rs.29,38,68,000/- on 05.01.2011. Therefore, there was an increase in the value of land to the tune of Rs.28,87,84,000/- due to its revaluation credited to the partners capital account

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

40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section 194H on payment in the nature of Sub brokerage/Commission. 7.The CIT(A) has erred in law and, on facts by directing to treat profit from sale of shares held only up to 30 days as business income and the balance as Capital gains

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

40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section 194H on payment in the nature of Sub brokerage/Commission. 7.The CIT(A) has erred in law and, on facts by directing to treat profit from sale of shares held only up to 30 days as business income and the balance as Capital gains

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

40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section 194H on payment in the nature of Sub brokerage/Commission. 7.The CIT(A) has erred in law and, on facts by directing to treat profit from sale of shares held only up to 30 days as business income and the balance as Capital gains

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

40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section 194H on payment in the nature of Sub brokerage/Commission. 7.The CIT(A) has erred in law and, on facts by directing to treat profit from sale of shares held only up to 30 days as business income and the balance as Capital gains

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

40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section 194H on payment in the nature of Sub brokerage/Commission. 7.The CIT(A) has erred in law and, on facts by directing to treat profit from sale of shares held only up to 30 days as business income and the balance as Capital gains

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

40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section 194H on payment in the nature of Sub brokerage/Commission. 7.The CIT(A) has erred in law and, on facts by directing to treat profit from sale of shares held only up to 30 days as business income and the balance as Capital gains

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

40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section 194H on payment in the nature of Sub brokerage/Commission. 7.The CIT(A) has erred in law and, on facts by directing to treat profit from sale of shares held only up to 30 days as business income and the balance as Capital gains

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

40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section 194H on payment in the nature of Sub brokerage/Commission. 7.The CIT(A) has erred in law and, on facts by directing to treat profit from sale of shares held only up to 30 days as business income and the balance as Capital gains

SMT. RASHIDABEN TAHER MORAWALA,GODHRA vs. THE DCIT, INT.-TAXA., BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

40,900/-. The Valuation Officer submitted his report on 14/08/2018 valued the Fair Market Value of the property at Rs. 1,80,39,000/-. The A.O. based on the Valuation Report issued a show cause notice on 05/09/2018 as to why the said value as per the Valuation Report amounting to Rs. 1,80,39,000/- should not be considered

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.

gain. We have upheld this finding of the ld.CIT(A) while rejecting the ground of appeal taken by the Revenue in the above discussion. Therefore, we are required to adjudicate what amount ought to be disallowed under section 14A of the Act. A perusal of the record would indicate that the ld.AO has made disallowance under two heads

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.

gain. We have upheld this finding of the ld.CIT(A) while rejecting the ground of appeal taken by the Revenue in the above discussion. Therefore, we are required to adjudicate what amount ought to be disallowed under section 14A of the Act. A perusal of the record would indicate that the ld.AO has made disallowance under two heads

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.

gain. We have upheld this finding of the ld.CIT(A) while rejecting the ground of appeal taken by the Revenue in the above discussion. Therefore, we are required to adjudicate what amount ought to be disallowed under section 14A of the Act. A perusal of the record would indicate that the ld.AO has made disallowance under two heads

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.

gain. We have upheld this finding of the ld.CIT(A) while rejecting the ground of appeal taken by the Revenue in the above discussion. Therefore, we are required to adjudicate what amount ought to be disallowed under section 14A of the Act. A perusal of the record would indicate that the ld.AO has made disallowance under two heads

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.

gain. We have upheld this finding of the ld.CIT(A) while rejecting the ground of appeal taken by the Revenue in the above discussion. Therefore, we are required to adjudicate what amount ought to be disallowed under section 14A of the Act. A perusal of the record would indicate that the ld.AO has made disallowance under two heads

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.

gain. We have upheld this finding of the ld.CIT(A) while rejecting the ground of appeal taken by the Revenue in the above discussion. Therefore, we are required to adjudicate what amount ought to be disallowed under section 14A of the Act. A perusal of the record would indicate that the ld.AO has made disallowance under two heads

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.

gain. We have upheld this finding of the ld.CIT(A) while rejecting the ground of appeal taken by the Revenue in the above discussion. Therefore, we are required to adjudicate what amount ought to be disallowed under section 14A of the Act. A perusal of the record would indicate that the ld.AO has made disallowance under two heads

SHRI ASHISH TANDON, ,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Section 28(va)(a) provides for exception to cases where, such receipts are taxable as capital gain viz., where any sum is received for transfer of a right to carry on any business which is chargeable to tax as capital gain. When the transferor is already carrying on business and agrees not to carry on business transferred, then the same