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 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

THAKORBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD- 3(1)(1), VADODARA

section\n2(47) of the Act took place only when possession and consideration were\neffectively transferred in the subsequent financial year relevant to A.Y. 2009-\n10. The counsel for the assessee placed reliance on judgments to submit that\neffective conveyance and possession are crucial for determining the year of\ntransfer. Lastly, the counsel submitted that the assessee had inherited

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 2(47)(iv) of the Act, if capital asset is converted into stock-in- trade or treated as stock-in-trade by the owner, such conversion or treatment shall be regarded as transfer. Further, as per sec. 45(2) of the Act, the profits or gains

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, 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

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), 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

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

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, 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

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), 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

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), 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