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.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

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.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

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.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

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.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

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.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

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

capital expenditure not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. 7.2 Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who relied on the decisions of Ld. CIT(A) for the preceding years i.e. AYs 2008- 09 to 2010-11, deleted the disallowance of Rs.1,57,98,657/- on account of product registration. 7.3 We find that

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

capital expenditure not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. 7.2 Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who relied on the decisions of Ld. CIT(A) for the preceding years i.e. AYs 2008- 09 to 2010-11, deleted the disallowance of Rs.1,57,98,657/- on account of product registration. 7.3 We find that

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

section 50D would be applicable after the AO comes to a finding that consideration received is not ascertainable or cannot be determined. We have extracted the finding of the ld.DRP. Nowhere such aspect is discernible. The ld.AO as matter of fact accepted the sale consideration at Rs.1 crore. He only replaced with fair market value on the basis

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

section 50D would be applicable after the AO comes to a finding that consideration received is not ascertainable or cannot be determined. We have extracted the finding of the ld.DRP. Nowhere such aspect is discernible. The ld.AO as matter of fact accepted the sale consideration at Rs.1 crore. He only replaced with fair market value on the basis

SHRI ALTAFHUSEN M. SIDDIKI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.577/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.969/Ahd/2015 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Altafhusen M. Siddiki, Prop Dcit, Circle-9 Of Sunmoon Roadways 6/D/1, Vs Ahmedabad Pursottam Estate, Nr. Cozy Hotel, Ranipur Patia, Sarkhej Road, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405 Pan No.Arsps3765P

gains of business or profession under sub-section (3) and this sub-section were a payment or aggregate of payment made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank on account payee bank draft exceeds twenty thousand rupees, in such cases and under such circumstances as may be prescribed, having regard

SHRI ALTAFHUSEN MAHEMUDUL HASAN SIDDIKI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.577/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.969/Ahd/2015 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Altafhusen M. Siddiki, Prop Dcit, Circle-9 Of Sunmoon Roadways 6/D/1, Vs Ahmedabad Pursottam Estate, Nr. Cozy Hotel, Ranipur Patia, Sarkhej Road, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405 Pan No.Arsps3765P

gains of business or profession under sub-section (3) and this sub-section were a payment or aggregate of payment made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank on account payee bank draft exceeds twenty thousand rupees, in such cases and under such circumstances as may be prescribed, having regard

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI KAILASH RAMAVATAR GOENKA, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital gains year-wise as computed and directed by the CIT(A). B. Grounds relating to Addition in respect of Internal Circulation of Funds and Unaccounted Receipts and Payments 15. The issue involved under these grounds pertain to unaccounted cash receipts and unaccounted cash payments, as reflected in the seized documents during the search operation. The AO made substantial additions

SHRI MANISH AMBALAL PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(4), VADODARA

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2011-12 Shri Manish Ambalal Patel Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4) 5, Jignesh Vedashraya Bungalows Vadodara. Iscon Temple Road B/H. Mother’S School, Gotri Road Vadodara. Pan : Aokpp 6108 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-5, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 3.10.2019 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2011-12. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee, Shri Bandish Soparkar, Filed An Application Before Us Stating That He Had Instructions From The Assessee To No-Longer Represent Him. Accordingly, He Sought Withdrawal Of His Letter Of Authority Issued By The Assessee In His Name In The Present Case. The Same Was Permitted. 2 3. Further, We Have Noted That Submissions In Writing Were Filed Before The Bench On 31.5.2022, On The Basis Of Which Matter Was Proceeded To Be Heard With In The Absence Of Any Other Communication From The Assessee .

gain derived from the sale of the land was exempt from tax as the asset sold did not qualify as capital asset and the income was not taxable as business income, and therefore, section 40A(3

NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 143(3) in case of sister concern namely Nirma Industries Limited for A.Y. 2004-05 where similar addition has been made. However the in case of Nirma Industries Limited addition has been deleted by the predecessor CIT(A). (b) The AO has doubted the business expediency and objective of making investment in OFCPNs those companies. However the courts have

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 143(3) in case of sister concern namely Nirma Industries Limited for A.Y. 2004-05 where similar addition has been made. However the in case of Nirma Industries Limited addition has been deleted by the predecessor CIT(A). (b) The AO has doubted the business expediency and objective of making investment in OFCPNs those companies. However the courts have

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 143(3) in case of sister concern namely Nirma Industries Limited for A.Y. 2004-05 where similar addition has been made. However the in case of Nirma Industries Limited addition has been deleted by the predecessor CIT(A). (b) The AO has doubted the business expediency and objective of making investment in OFCPNs those companies. However the courts have

NIRMA CHEMICAL WORKS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 143(3) in case of sister concern namely Nirma Industries Limited for A.Y. 2004-05 where similar addition has been made. However the in case of Nirma Industries Limited addition has been deleted by the predecessor CIT(A). (b) The AO has doubted the business expediency and objective of making investment in OFCPNs those companies. However the courts have

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 143(3) in case of sister concern namely Nirma Industries Limited for A.Y. 2004-05 where similar addition has been made. However the in case of Nirma Industries Limited addition has been deleted by the predecessor CIT(A). (b) The AO has doubted the business expediency and objective of making investment in OFCPNs those companies. However the courts have