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

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 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

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

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

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

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

capital gains) after 1st Oct., 2004. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the Revenue authorities and allow the claim of the assessee. 22. Respectfully following the views so taken by the coordinate bench, we uphold the plea of the assessee. The action of the Assessing Officer on this point is reversed, and the set off of loss carried forward

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

capital gains) after 1st Oct., 2004. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the Revenue authorities and allow the claim of the assessee. 22. Respectfully following the views so taken by the coordinate bench, we uphold the plea of the assessee. The action of the Assessing Officer on this point is reversed, and the set off of loss carried forward

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

capital gains) after 1st Oct., 2004. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the Revenue authorities and allow the claim of the assessee. 22. Respectfully following the views so taken by the coordinate bench, we uphold the plea of the assessee. The action of the Assessing Officer on this point is reversed, and the set off of loss carried forward

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/- and capital gain was shown at Nil while filing return of income by the appellant. During the course of Assessment Proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that Chinmay Gaurangbhai Shah Vs. ACIT AY : 2016-17 5 the appellant has made deposit with State Bank of India Capital Gain Account scheme

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

56. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon orders of the Revenue authorities. In the assessment year 2012-13, ld.DRP has considered this issue elaborately, but ultimately recorded the following finding: “16.9 Further, it is noted by the DRP that the assessee company has calculated the Capital Gains by taking a sale consideration of just Rs. 1 Crore only

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

56. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon orders of the Revenue authorities. In the assessment year 2012-13, ld.DRP has considered this issue elaborately, but ultimately recorded the following finding: “16.9 Further, it is noted by the DRP that the assessee company has calculated the Capital Gains by taking a sale consideration of just Rs. 1 Crore only

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

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

56,116/- only. Thus, the assessee offered additional income of Rs. 29 Lakhs in the return filed under section 153C of the Act. The additional income of Rs. 29 Lakh was offered against the cash deposits of Rs. 29 lakhs in the bank account of the assessee during the year under consideration. The assessment under section ITA No.251/Ahd/2022 with

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

56,116/- only. Thus, the assessee offered additional income of Rs. 29 Lakhs in the return filed under section 153C of the Act. The additional income of Rs. 29 Lakh was offered against the cash deposits of Rs. 29 lakhs in the bank account of the assessee during the year under consideration. The assessment under section ITA No.251/Ahd/2022 with

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

56,116/- only. Thus, the assessee offered additional income of Rs. 29 Lakhs in the return filed under section 153C of the Act. The additional income of Rs. 29 Lakh was offered against the cash deposits of Rs. 29 lakhs in the bank account of the assessee during the year under consideration. The assessment under section ITA No.251/Ahd/2022 with

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.

capital gain. We have upheld this finding of the ld.CIT(A) while rejecting the ground of appeal taken by the Revenue in the above discussion. Therefore, we are required to adjudicate what amount ought to be disallowed under section 14A of the Act. A perusal of the record would indicate that the ld.AO has made disallowance under two heads