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

capital gains and loss, both STCG/STCL and LTCG/LTCL as per their statements, their averments cannot be stretched/extended arbitrarily to mean that they are applicable to trading transactions also. 5. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in not appreciating that the provisions of Section 132(4A

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital gain declared by the assessee as alleged by the AO. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 14. The next issue raised by the assessee is that there were certain expenses incurred by the assessee in connection with the Power project

NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital gain declared by the assessee as alleged by the AO. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 14. The next issue raised by the assessee is that there were certain expenses incurred by the assessee in connection with the Power project

NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital gain declared by the assessee as alleged by the AO. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 14. The next issue raised by the assessee is that there were certain expenses incurred by the assessee in connection with the Power project

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital gain declared by the assessee as alleged by the AO. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 14. The next issue raised by the assessee is that there were certain expenses incurred by the assessee in connection with the Power project

NIRMA CHEMICAL WORKS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital gain declared by the assessee as alleged by the AO. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 14. The next issue raised by the assessee is that there were certain expenses incurred by the assessee in connection with the Power project

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital gain declared by the assessee as alleged by the AO. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 14. The next issue raised by the assessee is that there were certain expenses incurred by the assessee in connection with the Power project

SHRI KETAN RAMNIKLAL MEHTA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2010-11 Shri Ketan Ramniklal Mehta, Income-Tax Officer, 10, Nishant Bungalows, Part-1, Vs Ward 7(2), Nr. Shyamal Char Rasta, Satellite Ahmedabad Road, Ahmedabad – 380015 Pan : Aevpm 2649 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

capital gain of Rs. 2474201 and dividend of Rs. 263040 as appellant's business income. The appellant mainly contended that (a) The appellant kept a separate portfolio for investment and over the years department had accepted the same as investment. (b) The appellant invested in shares to earn dividend and consistently followed the practice of investment. (c) The addition

CHUDABHAI LAXMNABHAI DESAI,,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD -6(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

gain in assessment order has been done as per provisions of the Act as the land parcel situated at Village Chandlodia-Tal. Ahmedabad is a capital asset as per the definition of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and hence, the chargeability u/s. 45 would succeed. It is clear that the sales consideration received on sale of I.T.A

THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI JAGDISHCHANDRA B. PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2166/Ahd/2016 With C.O.159/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 I.T.O, Shri Jagdishchandra B. Patel, Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. 4A, Ketan Society, Ahmedabad. Nr. Sardar Patel Colony, Navjivan Post, Ahmedabad. Pan: Afupp4222L

4A, Ketan Society, Ahmedabad. Nr. Sardar Patel Colony, Navjivan Post, Ahmedabad. PAN: AFUPP4222L (Applicant) (Respondent) : Revenue by Shri N.R. Soni, C.I.T, D.R Assessee by : Shri Dhiren Shah & Ms Nupur Shah, A.Rs सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 10/10/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 27/11/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The captioned

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

capital asset as reduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer.] 38[(1B) Where any income in respect of which an option is exercised under clause (2) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) is not applied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the period referred to in sub-clause

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

capital asset as reduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer.] 38[(1B) Where any income in respect of which an option is exercised under clause (2) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) is not applied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the period referred to in sub-clause

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital asset as reduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer.] 38[(1B) Where any income in respect of which an option is exercised under clause (2) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) is not applied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the period referred to in sub-clause

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

capital asset as reduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer.] 38[(1B) Where any income in respect of which an option is exercised under clause (2) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) is not applied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the period referred to in sub-clause

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BAJAJ HERBALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is, thus, allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Capital Gain and Business Profit on sale of land ignoring the fact that the plot has been revalued at Rs. 6,60,66,000/- on form 3CD of audit report.” Ground No. 1:- 2. The assessee a manufacturer and exporter of cosmetic item filed its return of income on 29.09.2012 declaring income at Rs. NIL which was processed under Section

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2015), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(5), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2015), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(5), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2015), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(5), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section