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

2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not satisfied by the assessee. . 4.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,41,251/- made by A.O u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, on account of Lease Line charges of Rs.5,41,251/- paid to BSNL. The AO has rightly disallowed Rs.5,41

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

2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not satisfied by the assessee. . 4.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,41,251/- made by A.O u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, on account of Lease Line charges of Rs.5,41,251/- paid to BSNL. The AO has rightly disallowed Rs.5,41

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

2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not satisfied by the assessee. . 4.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,41,251/- made by A.O u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, on account of Lease Line charges of Rs.5,41,251/- paid to BSNL. The AO has rightly disallowed Rs.5,41

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

2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not satisfied by the assessee. . 4.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,41,251/- made by A.O u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, on account of Lease Line charges of Rs.5,41,251/- paid to BSNL. The AO has rightly disallowed Rs.5,41

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

2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not satisfied by the assessee. . 4.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,41,251/- made by A.O u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, on account of Lease Line charges of Rs.5,41,251/- paid to BSNL. The AO has rightly disallowed Rs.5,41

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

2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not satisfied by the assessee. . 4.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,41,251/- made by A.O u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, on account of Lease Line charges of Rs.5,41,251/- paid to BSNL. The AO has rightly disallowed Rs.5,41

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

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

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

gain is to be taxed on the amount of consideration received on transfer of asset. If the Assessing Officer is of the opinion, that valuation of the capital asset is required, but such reference can be made only to ascertain the fair market value, therefore, the applicability of section 55A(b)(ii) is also limited one. On reading of section

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)

gain on such conversion is in question. CIT(A) has appreciated the issue in correct legal perspective and in in sync with host of judgments holding the field in this regard. Therefore, there is no perceptible reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 7. Pertinently, we also take note of the clause (via) to Section

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)

gain on such conversion is in question. CIT(A) has appreciated the issue in correct legal perspective and in in sync with host of judgments holding the field in this regard. Therefore, there is no perceptible reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 7. Pertinently, we also take note of the clause (via) to Section

MRS. SHIKHA SANJAYA SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

41,625/- arising on sale of shares not subject to STT against long term capital gain arising from sale of Shares subjected to STT and accordingly exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the conclusion arrived at by the learned lower authorities is contrary to law. Mrs. Shikha Sanjaya Sharma vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2016-17 2

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

Gain as per provision of Section 48 of the I. T. Act, 1961 for indexing the cost from F.Y. 2005-06 when the BSE shares were allotted and first held by the assessee.” 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs.79/- on account

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

Gain as per provision of Section 48 of the I. T. Act, 1961 for indexing the cost from F.Y. 2005-06 when the BSE shares were allotted and first held by the assessee.” 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs.79/- on account

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

Gain as per provision of Section 48 of the I. T. Act, 1961 for indexing the cost from F.Y. 2005-06 when the BSE shares were allotted and first held by the assessee.” 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs.79/- on account

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

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

41,986 11.75% 8173% 7 3001-4000 15,96,18,534 45,288 12.67% 94.40% 8 4001-5000 2,15,47,954 4,563 1.28% 95.68% 9 5001-7000 6,07,52,130 10,521 2.94% 98.62% 10 7001-10000 2

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

41,986 11.75% 8173% 7 3001-4000 15,96,18,534 45,288 12.67% 94.40% 8 4001-5000 2,15,47,954 4,563 1.28% 95.68% 9 5001-7000 6,07,52,130 10,521 2.94% 98.62% 10 7001-10000 2