ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

capital gain and other sources. During the course of assessment proceeding, it was noticed that the assessee had entered into international transaction as well specified domestic transaction. Further that, it was noticed that transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.39,94,66,330/- in assessee’s ITA No. 162/Ahd/2021 (Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT) A.Y.– 2016-17 - 4 – own case was made

SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

capital gain is not to be charged under Section 45 of the said Act 24. For the reasons discussed above, the appeal is allowed. The questions framed above are answered in favour of the appellant assessee and I.T.A No. 324/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 11 Shri Jignesh Jaysukhlal Ghiya. vs. DCIT against the respondent revenue. The first question

RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD.,),HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

3– “Ground No. 1: Levy of capital gains under section 45 of the Act considering demerger of the treasury undertaking as non-qualifying demerger. 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in considering demerger of the treasury undertaking (‘undertaking’) pursuant to a scheme of arrangement under

JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

3– “Ground No. 1: Levy of capital gains under section 45 of the Act considering demerger of the treasury undertaking as non-qualifying demerger. 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in considering demerger of the treasury undertaking (‘undertaking’) pursuant to a scheme of arrangement under

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI KAILASH RAMAVATAR GOENKA, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

6,61,31,749/- by the CIT(A) across properties and assessment years were as follows: • Short-Term Capital Gains (Shilpgram - AY 2017-18): Rs. 1,43,82,753/-. • Long-Term Capital Gains (Shilpgram - AY 2019-20): Rs. 1,07,53,755/-. • Long-Term Capital Gains (Khoraj - AY 2019-20): Rs. 3,76,77,305/-. • Short-Term Capital Gains (Silver

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 1 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. BHARAT LAKHAJI NANDWANA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

3– the period of holding of the previous owner i.e. the trust should be considered while computing capital gains in terms of section 49 of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the capital gains arising from the sale of the residential property were invested partly in specified bonds eligible under section 54EC of the Act and partly

SHRI AJAY REGHUBHAI BHARWAD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

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

section 45(1) of the act, any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year I.T.A No. 595, 596 & 597/Ahd/2020 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Page No 10 Shri Piyush M. Dobariya vs. ITO & Ors. shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains" with certain conditions and exemptions

AJAY REGHUBHAI BHARWAD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

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

section 45(1) of the act, any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year I.T.A No. 595, 596 & 597/Ahd/2020 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Page No 10 Shri Piyush M. Dobariya vs. ITO & Ors. shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains" with certain conditions and exemptions

SHRI PIYUSH M DOBARIYA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(4), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

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

section 45(1) of the act, any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year I.T.A No. 595, 596 & 597/Ahd/2020 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Page No 10 Shri Piyush M. Dobariya vs. ITO & Ors. shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains" with certain conditions and exemptions

DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

capital gain on sale of 80,00,000 shares donated to\nthe assessee trust, was avoided by the trustee by making this\narrangement, was not denied. In view of this fact, the Ld. CIT(A) had\nrightly invoked the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act to deny the\nclaim of exemption under Section

ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

capital gain on sale of 80,00,000 shares donated to\nthe assessee trust, was avoided by the trustee by making this\narrangement, was not denied. In view of this fact, the Ld. CIT(A) had\nrightly invoked the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act to deny the\nclaim of exemption under Section

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI MAHESH SOMABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

capital gain shown by the assessee. Likewise we also note that the assessee has discharged the onus imposed under section 68 of the Act by furnishing the necessary documentary evidence in support of the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the parties. Therefore the same cannot be made subject to tax under the provisions of section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD vs. JHAVERI SANDEEP BIPINCHANDRA (HUF), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2016-17 Jhaveri Sandeep Income Tax Officer, Vs. Bipinchandra (Huf), Ward-5(3)(1), 21, Crest Nutan Laxmi Soc., Ahmedabad 9Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400049 Pan : Aachj 0855 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Pune-12 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 24.08.2023 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 Raised By The Department Reads As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Treating The Income Of Rs. 54,49,539/- As Short Term Capital Gain Instead Of Business Income.” 3. The Issue Raised In The Above Ground Relates To The Short Term Capital Gain Returned By The Assessee, On The Transactions Of Dealing In Shares, As Ito Vs Jhaveri Sandeep Bipinchandra Huf Ay : 2016-17 2

Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the Department reads as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the income

RAVINDRABHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5) NOW ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Ito Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Vs. Ward-1(2)(5). Patel Now Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) 86,Kanha Residency Vadodara – 390 007 Kalali Road, Kalali Ahmedabad – 390 012 [Pan : Aigpp 8415 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Assessee Represented By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

6. The CIT(Appeals) carefully considered the assessment order, the submissions of the assessee and the case laws relied upon. However, the CIT(Appeals) held that the provisions of sections 54B(2) and 54F(4) specifically require that the unutilised capital gains should be deposited in the Capital Gain Account Scheme before the due date of filing the return under

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block No. 485A of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- on account of undisclosed amount of capital gain on Block No. 485A which has been added without

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block No. 485A of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- on account of undisclosed amount of capital gain on Block No. 485A which has been added without

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block No. 485A of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- on account of undisclosed amount of capital gain on Block No. 485A which has been added without

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block No. 485A of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- on account of undisclosed amount of capital gain on Block No. 485A which has been added without