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

Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14

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

Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14

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

Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14

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

Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14

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

Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14

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

Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14

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

57(iii). On going through the use of the above and other similar expressions in different parts of the Act, it is clearly borne out that these have not been used interchangeably. The Legislature is fully conscious of an employment of an appropriate expression, depending upon its intent of expanding or contracting the scope of the section. Wherever it intends

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.

gain”, then disallowance out of professional fees deserves to be confirmed. Therefore, we have rejected the ground of appeal bearing no.2 in ITA No.1380/Ahd/2009 raised by the assessee. As far as disallowance out of interest expenditure is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) has deleted this disallowance. We find that gross investment by the assessee in the Asstt.Year

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.

gain”, then disallowance out of professional fees deserves to be confirmed. Therefore, we have rejected the ground of appeal bearing no.2 in ITA No.1380/Ahd/2009 raised by the assessee. As far as disallowance out of interest expenditure is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) has deleted this disallowance. We find that gross investment by the assessee in the Asstt.Year

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.

gain”, then disallowance out of professional fees deserves to be confirmed. Therefore, we have rejected the ground of appeal bearing no.2 in ITA No.1380/Ahd/2009 raised by the assessee. As far as disallowance out of interest expenditure is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) has deleted this disallowance. We find that gross investment by the assessee in the Asstt.Year

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.

gain”, then disallowance out of professional fees deserves to be confirmed. Therefore, we have rejected the ground of appeal bearing no.2 in ITA No.1380/Ahd/2009 raised by the assessee. As far as disallowance out of interest expenditure is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) has deleted this disallowance. We find that gross investment by the assessee in the Asstt.Year

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.

gain”, then disallowance out of professional fees deserves to be confirmed. Therefore, we have rejected the ground of appeal bearing no.2 in ITA No.1380/Ahd/2009 raised by the assessee. As far as disallowance out of interest expenditure is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) has deleted this disallowance. We find that gross investment by the assessee in the Asstt.Year

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.

gain”, then disallowance out of professional fees deserves to be confirmed. Therefore, we have rejected the ground of appeal bearing no.2 in ITA No.1380/Ahd/2009 raised by the assessee. As far as disallowance out of interest expenditure is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) has deleted this disallowance. We find that gross investment by the assessee in the Asstt.Year

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.

gain”, then disallowance out of professional fees deserves to be confirmed. Therefore, we have rejected the ground of appeal bearing no.2 in ITA No.1380/Ahd/2009 raised by the assessee. As far as disallowance out of interest expenditure is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) has deleted this disallowance. We find that gross investment by the assessee in the Asstt.Year

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. PRATHAM INVESTMENTS,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 76/Ahd/2015 & 9/Ahd/2017 & I.T.A. No. 3087/Ahd/2016 (In I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016) & ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

gains arising from conversion of trading asset into capital asset is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Aditya Medisales Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 197 (Guj) and the decision of the co-ordinate bench in ACIT vs. Bright Star Investments

M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 76/Ahd/2015 & 9/Ahd/2017 & I.T.A. No. 3087/Ahd/2016 (In I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016) & ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

gains arising from conversion of trading asset into capital asset is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Aditya Medisales Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 197 (Guj) and the decision of the co-ordinate bench in ACIT vs. Bright Star Investments

SMT. JYOTI SUNIL MANIYAR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 888/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Smt Joyti Sunil Maniyar, Ito, बनाम/ C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate Ward – 2(4), Vs. 903, Sapphire Complex, Ahmedabad. C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agepa 2433 K .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Ketan Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Lalit P Jain, Sr. D.R.

57,708/- as long- term capital gain to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 15.12.2011 u/s 143(3) of the Act. Smt. Jyoti Sunil Maniyar vs. ITO A.Y. 2009-10 5.1 The assessee in its assessment order initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of income for such capital

MRS. SHIKHA SANJAYA SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

57,200/- exempt u/s 10(38) and did not allow carry forward. On appeal by assessee, the Hon’ble ITAT examined the scheme of Income-tax Act extensively and allowed the claim of assesse by concluding thus: “In the light of the above discussion, we are not in agreement with the view of the revenue that long term capital loss