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

43(6)(c), (iv) Section 55(2)(a)(ii) and (v) Section 49(1)(iii)(e) relied upon by the Assessing Officer for disallowing the claim of depreciation related to assets transferred in AIA Engineering Ltd - Cross Appeals AY : 2016-17 the scheme of amalgamation and goodwill being an intangible asset not transferred from the amalgamating company to the amalgamated

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld

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

5,54,55,955/- which was Rs. 3,73,068,602/-as on 31 March, 2007. We have noticed that there is no unsecured loan appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31st March, 2008. It has total investment in mutual fund to the amount of Rs. 20,22,72,726/- as per schedule 6 of investments

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

5,54,55,955/- which was Rs. 3,73,068,602/-as on 31 March, 2007. We have noticed that there is no unsecured loan appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31st March, 2008. It has total investment in mutual fund to the amount of Rs. 20,22,72,726/- as per schedule 6 of investments

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

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

43,82,753/-. • Long-Term Capital Gains (Shilpgram - AY 2019-20): Rs. 1,07,53,755/-. • Long-Term Capital Gains (Khoraj - AY 2019-20): Rs. 3,76,77,305/-. • Short-Term Capital Gains (Silver Harmony - AY 2020-21): Rs. 33,17,936/-. 10.1. Accordingly, the AO was directed to tax the capital gains year-wise under the appropriate heads

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

43,500/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act by reason of the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.” In the case of Sumati Dayal vs. Ld. CIT(A) 214 ITR 801 (SC), the 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court has stressed upon

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

43,500/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act by reason of the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.” In the case of Sumati Dayal vs. Ld. CIT(A) 214 ITR 801 (SC), the 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court has stressed upon

SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

43,500/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act by reason of the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.” In the case of Sumati Dayal vs. Ld. CIT(A) 214 ITR 801 (SC), the 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court has stressed upon

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Capitalization of WIP 4,88,000 Prior Period Income 1,05,89,848 Interest free advances 4,24,000 Interest free advances to Shri Nilesh Keshavlal Patel 61,677 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has given partial relief to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order