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

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

69 of the Act in Khoraj and Shilpgram 9. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in calculating capital gain after providing benefit of indexation to the assessee as on the unaccounted on-money payments to the seller for acquiring the plots, Shilpgram, Jaspur 651 and Khoraj Survey 381/1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 taxmann.com 315 (Bangalore – Tribunal), the ITAT held that where Revenue itself was not sure as to whether alleged capital gains was to be assessed in the hands of assessee and such addition was made on protective basis, penalty under Section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 taxmann.com 315 (Bangalore – Tribunal), the ITAT held that where Revenue itself was not sure as to whether alleged capital gains was to be assessed in the hands of assessee and such addition was made on protective basis, penalty under Section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 taxmann.com 315 (Bangalore – Tribunal), the ITAT held that where Revenue itself was not sure as to whether alleged capital gains was to be assessed in the hands of assessee and such addition was made on protective basis, penalty under Section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 taxmann.com 315 (Bangalore – Tribunal), the ITAT held that where Revenue itself was not sure as to whether alleged capital gains was to be assessed in the hands of assessee and such addition was made on protective basis, penalty under Section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 taxmann.com 315 (Bangalore – Tribunal), the ITAT held that where Revenue itself was not sure as to whether alleged capital gains was to be assessed in the hands of assessee and such addition was made on protective basis, penalty under Section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 taxmann.com 315 (Bangalore – Tribunal), the ITAT held that where Revenue itself was not sure as to whether alleged capital gains was to be assessed in the hands of assessee and such addition was made on protective basis, penalty under Section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 taxmann.com 315 (Bangalore – Tribunal), the ITAT held that where Revenue itself was not sure as to whether alleged capital gains was to be assessed in the hands of assessee and such addition was made on protective basis, penalty under Section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 taxmann.com 315 (Bangalore – Tribunal), the ITAT held that where Revenue itself was not sure as to whether alleged capital gains was to be assessed in the hands of assessee and such addition was made on protective basis, penalty under Section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 taxmann.com 315 (Bangalore – Tribunal), the ITAT held that where Revenue itself was not sure as to whether alleged capital gains was to be assessed in the hands of assessee and such addition was made on protective basis, penalty under Section

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

69,39,723/- and 7.5% of conference related expenses amounting to ₹33,59,890/-. The AO further disallowed employees’ contribution to provident fund amounting to ₹3,84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

69,39,723/- and 7.5% of conference related expenses amounting to ₹33,59,890/-. The AO further disallowed employees’ contribution to provident fund amounting to ₹3,84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

69,39,723/- and 7.5% of conference related expenses amounting to ₹33,59,890/-. The AO further disallowed employees’ contribution to provident fund amounting to ₹3,84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

69,39,723/- and 7.5% of conference related expenses amounting to ₹33,59,890/-. The AO further disallowed employees’ contribution to provident fund amounting to ₹3,84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

69,39,723/- and 7.5% of conference related expenses amounting to ₹33,59,890/-. The AO further disallowed employees’ contribution to provident fund amounting to ₹3,84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

69,39,723/- and 7.5% of conference related expenses amounting to ₹33,59,890/-. The AO further disallowed employees’ contribution to provident fund amounting to ₹3,84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

69 & 72 at Khanpur land was wrongly debited to Investment in Agriculture land during F.Y: 2010-11 which were rectified in subsequent year. 4. That the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on fact in confirming the addition made by Ld. AO Rs. 7,05,466/-U/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the IT Act. 5. That