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 gains under section 45 of the Act considering demerger of the treasury undertaking as non-qualifying demerger. 1.1 On the facts

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 gains under section 45 of the Act considering demerger of the treasury undertaking as non-qualifying demerger. 1.1 On the facts

AJAY REGHUBHAI BHARWAD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

capital asset and profits or gains that arise from such transfer. According to section 45(1) of the act, any profits

SHRI AJAY REGHUBHAI BHARWAD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

capital asset and profits or gains that arise from such transfer. According to section 45(1) of the act, any profits

SHRI PIYUSH M DOBARIYA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(4), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

capital asset and profits or gains that arise from such transfer. According to section 45(1) of the act, any profits

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

45,66,39,880 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 3.4. In case of additions relating to unaccounted cash receipts and expenses including investments, the AO calculated the tax as per the provisions of section 115BBE

BHOGILAL BAHILALBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT -1, VADOADAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-16 Bhogilal Bhailalbhai Patel Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 475/2 Sagar Faliya Vadodara. At & Post Bhayali Vadodara 391 410. Pan : Bkkpp 3136 R

capital gain and the cost of the new asset shall be charged under section 45 as the income of the previous

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain (in short “STCG”) in the hands of the assessee towards sale of this land. In view of this additions, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 29,16,360/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, while framing the assessment in the hands of the assessee. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain (in short “STCG”) in the hands of the assessee towards sale of this land. In view of this additions, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 29,16,360/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, while framing the assessment in the hands of the assessee. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain (in short “STCG”) in the hands of the assessee towards sale of this land. In view of this additions, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 29,16,360/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, while framing the assessment in the hands of the assessee. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain (in short “STCG”) in the hands of the assessee towards sale of this land. In view of this additions, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 29,16,360/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, while framing the assessment in the hands of the assessee. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain (in short “STCG”) in the hands of the assessee towards sale of this land. In view of this additions, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 29,16,360/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, while framing the assessment in the hands of the assessee. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain (in short “STCG”) in the hands of the assessee towards sale of this land. In view of this additions, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 29,16,360/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, while framing the assessment in the hands of the assessee. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain (in short “STCG”) in the hands of the assessee towards sale of this land. In view of this additions, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 29,16,360/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, while framing the assessment in the hands of the assessee. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain (in short “STCG”) in the hands of the assessee towards sale of this land. In view of this additions, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 29,16,360/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, while framing the assessment in the hands of the assessee. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain (in short “STCG”) in the hands of the assessee towards sale of this land. In view of this additions, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 29,16,360/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, while framing the assessment in the hands of the assessee. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in the hands

SUMIT H BHAGCHANDANI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

45,018/-. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised the ground that the Assessing Officer erred in partially disallowing the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act by treating the deposit made in the Capital Gains

SHRI KIRANKUMAR RASIKLAL SANGHVI,DEESA vs. THE PR.CIT-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

45; (b) if the cost of the new asset is less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section