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

56,86,282/- was earned on the shares and therefore in the light of the decisions relied upon treating the capital gains as business income was not warranted. 10.4. I have considered the facts of the matter. Apart from the stock braking business, appellant earned income on the purchase and sale of shares/securities as investment and interest income. 10.5 Appellant

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

56,86,282/- was earned on the shares and therefore in the light of the decisions relied upon treating the capital gains as business income was not warranted. 10.4. I have considered the facts of the matter. Apart from the stock braking business, appellant earned income on the purchase and sale of shares/securities as investment and interest income. 10.5 Appellant

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

56,86,282/- was earned on the shares and therefore in the light of the decisions relied upon treating the capital gains as business income was not warranted. 10.4. I have considered the facts of the matter. Apart from the stock braking business, appellant earned income on the purchase and sale of shares/securities as investment and interest income. 10.5 Appellant

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS 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

56,86,282/- was earned on the shares and therefore in the light of the decisions relied upon treating the capital gains as business income was not warranted. 10.4. I have considered the facts of the matter. Apart from the stock braking business, appellant earned income on the purchase and sale of shares/securities as investment and interest income. 10.5 Appellant

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

56,86,282/- was earned on the shares and therefore in the light of the decisions relied upon treating the capital gains as business income was not warranted. 10.4. I have considered the facts of the matter. Apart from the stock braking business, appellant earned income on the purchase and sale of shares/securities as investment and interest income. 10.5 Appellant

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

56,86,282/- was earned on the shares and therefore in the light of the decisions relied upon treating the capital gains as business income was not warranted. 10.4. I have considered the facts of the matter. Apart from the stock braking business, appellant earned income on the purchase and sale of shares/securities as investment and interest income. 10.5 Appellant

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

56,00,942/- out of interest expenditure made by the Assessing Officer as per section 14A of the Act was not justified keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court as well as the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad and even no new facts or circumstances have been brought before us in order

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

56,732/- out of professional fees and Rs.1,11,47,627/- on account of interest expenses. He observed that if at any appellate stage the same is held taxable under the heading “capital gain” then disallowance under section

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

56,732/- out of professional fees and Rs.1,11,47,627/- on account of interest expenses. He observed that if at any appellate stage the same is held taxable under the heading “capital gain” then disallowance under section

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

56,732/- out of professional fees and Rs.1,11,47,627/- on account of interest expenses. He observed that if at any appellate stage the same is held taxable under the heading “capital gain” then disallowance under section

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

56,732/- out of professional fees and Rs.1,11,47,627/- on account of interest expenses. He observed that if at any appellate stage the same is held taxable under the heading “capital gain” then disallowance under section

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

56,732/- out of professional fees and Rs.1,11,47,627/- on account of interest expenses. He observed that if at any appellate stage the same is held taxable under the heading “capital gain” then disallowance under section

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

56,732/- out of professional fees and Rs.1,11,47,627/- on account of interest expenses. He observed that if at any appellate stage the same is held taxable under the heading “capital gain” then disallowance under section

THA ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

56,732/- out of professional fees and Rs.1,11,47,627/- on account of interest expenses. He observed that if at any appellate stage the same is held taxable under the heading “capital gain” then disallowance under section

SHRI ASHISH TANDON, ,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

section 28(va) of the Act. 4. Without prejudice to Ground No. 3, the learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in attributing the entire receipt of Rs.9,70,59,873 towards non- compete fees. Capital Gains - Alternate Grounds of Appeal: Without prejudice to Grounds No. 1 and 2: 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have directed

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI JIGAR JASHWANTLAL SHAH, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

gained' "qualitatively" with substantial controlling interest of 53.22% in AY 13-14 as compared to 27.90% in immediately preceding year AY 12-13 and 'quantitatively' with Rs.4,90,00,000 to be charged as income as per section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 4,90,00,000/- received by way disproportionate allotment of shares

SHRI JIGAR JASHWANTLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

gained' "qualitatively" with substantial controlling interest of 53.22% in AY 13-14 as compared to 27.90% in immediately preceding year AY 12-13 and 'quantitatively' with Rs.4,90,00,000 to be charged as income as per section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 4,90,00,000/- received by way disproportionate allotment of shares

CHINMAY GAURANGBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT (INTER.TAXA)-1, AHMEDABAD

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

56,00,000 Taxable Long term Capital gain (A-D) NIL 5.2 As against total capital gain of Rs. 2,52,22,198/-, investment in view of provisions of section