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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated 17.09.2021, we are of the considered view that penalty under Section 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated 17.09.2021, we are of the considered view that penalty under Section 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated 17.09.2021, we are of the considered view that penalty under Section 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated 17.09.2021, we are of the considered view that penalty under Section 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated 17.09.2021, we are of the considered view that penalty under Section 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated 17.09.2021, we are of the considered view that penalty under Section 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated 17.09.2021, we are of the considered view that penalty under Section 271(1

SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer shall consider that investment made by the assessee in the construction of new property after the sale of existing property in terms of section 54F of the Act. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

41,44,39,440/-. The return was duly processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Upon selection for scrutiny under CASS, as there was international transaction as well as specified domestic transactions covered under Section 92B and 92BA of the Act respectively, the case was referred to the TPO, Ahmedabad by and under letter dated 13.02.2018 for determination

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 397/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Dcit Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 532/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Acit, Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr Dr & Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

gains of business or profession. 43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires — AIA Engineering Ltd - Cross Appeals AY : 2016-17 (1) "actual cost" means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met3 directly or indirectly

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

gains of business or profession", as per the provisions of the Act.” 10. We have also examined the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. in CA No. 6949 of 2004 dated 21.04.2018, wherein the Court considered the applicability of Section 28(iv) and Section 41(1) of the Income

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

gains of business or profession", as per the provisions of the Act.” 10. We have also examined the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. in CA No. 6949 of 2004 dated 21.04.2018, wherein the Court considered the applicability of Section 28(iv) and Section 41(1) of the Income

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

gains of business or profession", as per the provisions of the Act.” 10. We have also examined the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. in CA No. 6949 of 2004 dated 21.04.2018, wherein the Court considered the applicability of Section 28(iv) and Section 41(1) of the Income

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

gains of business or profession", as per the provisions of the Act.” 10. We have also examined the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. in CA No. 6949 of 2004 dated 21.04.2018, wherein the Court considered the applicability of Section 28(iv) and Section 41(1) of the Income

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

41,74,014/- IT(SS)A No.1/Ahd/2023 Kailash Ramavatar Goenka vs. ACIT and seven other appeals (By Assessee and By Revenue) Asst. Years : 2016-17 to 2019-20 9. The assessee submitted that Flat No. A-902 was purchased on 21-08- 2018 and the same was sold on 26-04-2019 and the capital gain has been offered

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

capital gains have been credited to the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act. Once such gains form part of net profit, the computation of their quantum must necessarily follow the computation mechanism contained in section 48, which statutorily mandates indexation. Denial of indexation would artificially inflate book profit and result in MAT being levied