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.

583/-; Rs.22,212/-; Rs.69,017/- and Rs.1,94,282/- in the Asstt.Years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Firstly, facts on all vital points on this issue are common in all the assessment years. For the sake of reference, we take up the facts from Asstt.Year 2005-06. 4. The ld.AO has issued show cause notice to the assessee inviting

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.

583/-; Rs.22,212/-; Rs.69,017/- and Rs.1,94,282/- in the Asstt.Years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Firstly, facts on all vital points on this issue are common in all the assessment years. For the sake of reference, we take up the facts from Asstt.Year 2005-06. 4. The ld.AO has issued show cause notice to the assessee inviting

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.

583/-; Rs.22,212/-; Rs.69,017/- and Rs.1,94,282/- in the Asstt.Years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Firstly, facts on all vital points on this issue are common in all the assessment years. For the sake of reference, we take up the facts from Asstt.Year 2005-06. 4. The ld.AO has issued show cause notice to the assessee inviting

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.

583/-; Rs.22,212/-; Rs.69,017/- and Rs.1,94,282/- in the Asstt.Years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Firstly, facts on all vital points on this issue are common in all the assessment years. For the sake of reference, we take up the facts from Asstt.Year 2005-06. 4. The ld.AO has issued show cause notice to the assessee inviting

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.

583/-; Rs.22,212/-; Rs.69,017/- and Rs.1,94,282/- in the Asstt.Years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Firstly, facts on all vital points on this issue are common in all the assessment years. For the sake of reference, we take up the facts from Asstt.Year 2005-06. 4. The ld.AO has issued show cause notice to the assessee inviting

M/S. CHANDAN INFRATECH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

capital gain of Rs. 22,36,38,580 as Income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains from Business or profession" and thereby computing tax at higher rate of 30% as against tax rate of 15% as provided under section 111A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I.T.A No. 1597/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 8 M/s. Chandan Infratech

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

capital gain in the event the assessee makes the sale of its bungalow in dispute. It is because the revenue has not doubted on the incurrence of such expenses while framing the assessment. Besides the above, all the necessary details of the construction expenses were made available to the authorities below along with the addresses and the payments were made

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

4 5. However, the AO was not agreed with the contentions/submissions of the assessee by observing that the price agreed in the agreement with ABPL has increased by 225% in comparison to the price at which the lands was sold to BRL in a period of 3 months only. Accordingly, he was of the view that the entire modus operandi

SHRI YOGESH KIRCHAND SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

583 (Without Actual delivery) 4. Sale of derivatives Rs. 1,84,14,493 (Without Actual delivery) 5. Purchase of shares Rs. 98,86,963 (Without Actual delivery) The assessee has shown LTCG and STCG on first two type of transaction as investment and in respect of other types of transaction the assessee has shown as his business income. Considering

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

583 wherein it was held as follows: “Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Business expenditure. Allowability of (Software) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Whether in view of decision in case of CIT v. N.J. India Invest (P.) Ltd. [2013] 32 taxmann.com I.T.A Nos.712 & 741 /Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 35 Sun Pharma Labs. Ltd. vs. DCIT 367/215 Taxman

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

583 wherein it was held as follows: “Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Business expenditure. Allowability of (Software) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Whether in view of decision in case of CIT v. N.J. India Invest (P.) Ltd. [2013] 32 taxmann.com I.T.A Nos.712 & 741 /Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 35 Sun Pharma Labs. Ltd. vs. DCIT 367/215 Taxman

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital financing, including any type of long-term or short-term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other debt arising during the course of business; 8.1 It can be seen that the guarantee was included within the ambit of international transaction

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital financing, including any type of long-term or short-term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other debt arising during the course of business; 8.1 It can be seen that the guarantee was included within the ambit of international transaction

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital financing, including any type of long-term or short-term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other debt arising during the course of business; 8.1 It can be seen that the guarantee was included within the ambit of international transaction

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital financing, including any type of long-term or short-term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other debt arising during the course of business; 8.1 It can be seen that the guarantee was included within the ambit of international transaction

SHRI VINODKUMAR SHARMA,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1298/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Vinodkumar Sharma Ito, Ward-3(2) Prop: Of R.B. Transport Co. Vs Vadodara. 4-Rutvi Flats Bhadram Nagar New Sama Road Vadodara 390 008. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amar K. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Aoita Shukla, Sr.Dr

gain at Rs.62,583/- on sale of immovable property. The assessee has claimed certain expenditure which was incurred for development of the property. The ld.AO did not accept the claim of the assessee fully and he made an addition of Rs.6,65,355/-. The details of the expenditure claimed by the assessee vis-à-vis allowed/disallowed by the AO read

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Capital Infusion. 55. The TPO found that the assessee during the year has made payment of share application money to the following AEs: S. Name of AE Amount in Rs. Date of Date of share No. payment allotted 1 Zao Torrent Pharma 20,51,66,850/- 08-08-2012 28-03-2013 2 Zao Torrent Pharma

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Mahavir Prasadassessment Year : 2011-12 Ananya Finance For Inclusive The Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Growth P Ltd. Ambawadi 401, Shaan, Op: M.J. Library Ahmedabad 380015. Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aahca 8023 D

gain; thus, claiming depreciation and avoiding any payment of taxes 4 in the process. The order of the AO was upheld by the ld.CIT(A) against which the assessee has come up in appeal before us. 5. We have heard both the parties. 6. Before proceeding to adjudicate the issue, it is pertinent to outline certain relevant facts relating