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

gains tax by virtue of various clauses forming a part of Section 47 of the IT Act subjected to the applications of provisions of Section 2(19AA) of the Act. It is also settled position of law that the scheme of demerger once approved by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, it cannot be re-visited by any statutory authority

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

capital gains year-wise as computed and directed by the CIT(A). B. Grounds relating to Addition in respect of Internal Circulation of Funds and Unaccounted Receipts and Payments 15. The issue involved under these grounds pertain to unaccounted cash receipts and unaccounted cash payments, as reflected in the seized documents during the search operation. The AO made substantial additions

THAKORBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD- 3(1)(1), VADODARA

72,000/-\nas unexplained receipt taxable as “income from other sources\". The\nAssessing Officer also treated ₹4,98,000/- as short-term capital gain by\nassuming cost of acquisition as nil. Accordingly, the reassessment was\ncompleted under section

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

section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D. 4. Enquiries made by the AO as sequel to information collected/received: As per para no. 2 5. Findings of the AO: (1) The assessee had purchased agriculture land block bearing consolidated R.S. No. 57, 41, 83, 91,36, 72 and 73 at Ankhodia, Vadodara admeasuring to 114829 square meter (12,36,019 square

BHAVNA NACHIKETAN BAROT,VADODARA vs. ITO WARD - 1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2015-16

72,500/- as short term capital gain by taking the difference between the Sale price of the property of Rs.52,00,000/- and purchase price of the property of Rs. 42,27,500/- without appreciating the facts that the assesses is a non-resident of India and no source of income in India except capital gain income earned during

SHAILESH NATVARLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19

72,675/-, and cost of improvement of Rs.1,00,000/-, citing absence of documentary evidence in support of the same. Accordingly, the AO computed the long-term capital gain at Rs.24,96,236/-, allowed deduction under section

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

Capital Gains under section 10(38) of the Act, treating the underlying shares as "penny stocks"; and (iv) Addition on account of alleged on-money received on the sale of property in the Earth Erita project. These additions were made based on material allegedly found during the search action, including digital data like WhatsApp chats retrieved from third-party mobile

SHAMA AJAY PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(IT & TP), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shama Ajay Patel, Vs. 2, Chandroday Society, The Cit(It & Tp), Opp. Golden Triangle, Sp Ahmedabad Stadium Road, Navjivan Post, Ahmedabad-380014 Pan : Alxpp 5273 E अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It & Tp), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. "Cit(It & Tp)" For Short] Dated 08.02.2023, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit (It & Tp) Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Without Jurisdiction & Appropriate Powers Available Under The Act. It Is Submitted That The Order Passed U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As A.O. Has Neither Committed Any Error Nor It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. It Be Held Now.

capital gain and claiming exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. This is nothing but tax evasion which is not permissible within the frame work of the Income-tax Act." 8.4 The above information was available to the Assessing Officer on Insight portal of the Department. However, the AO while passing the order did not consider the provisions

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ARDOR OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

capital gains earned therein also cannot be brought to tax and it is only the commission element embedded therein which is to be subjected to tax which the statements revealed to be to the tune of 2% of the financial transactions carried out in M/s. Nikshal Properties Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer in the case of M/s. Nikshal Properties

NIKSHAL POPERTIES PVT. LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

capital gains earned therein also cannot be brought to tax and it is only the commission element embedded therein which is to be subjected to tax which the statements revealed to be to the tune of 2% of the financial transactions carried out in M/s. Nikshal Properties Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer in the case of M/s. Nikshal Properties

ARDOR OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

capital gains earned therein also cannot be brought to tax and it is only the commission element embedded therein which is to be subjected to tax which the statements revealed to be to the tune of 2% of the financial transactions carried out in M/s. Nikshal Properties Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer in the case of M/s. Nikshal Properties

HIRAL TAPANKUMAR CHUDGAR,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

gain has declared income as stated below for Assessment Year: PARTICULARS AY 2018-19 SALE CONSIDERATION CG 65,87,059 COST OF ACQUISITION OF SHARE (1,18,73,513) AMOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS (52,86,454) LOSS CLAIMED IN CURRENTYEAR - LOSS C/F TO NEXT YEAR (52,86,454) LOSS B/F IN NEXT YEAR i.e. A.Y. 2019-20 - From

BHUPENDRABHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, ANAND

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

capital gains under Section 50C (computed as\nRs.29,65,802/- minus the cost of acquisition Rs.4,03,650/- and STCG\nRs.1,08,514/-) and Rs.1,75,000/- as commission income under \"income from\nother sources.” The total income was thus assessed at Rs.29,09,710/-, including\nagricultural income of Rs.1,72

SHRI NEERAV SHAILESH PAREKH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued on 27.08.2009 and duly served on the assessee. In response to the said notices, the Chartered Accountant of the assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and furnished the details. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is deriving income from salary, house property, capital gain and from other sources

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

capital gain in the regular course. Thus, the allegation in the 263 proceedings that the Ld. AO has not examined the income offered amounting to Rs. 2.30 crore is only in the grab of change of opinion by the Ld.PCIT. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT-8, Mumbai vs. Sumatichand

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

capital gain in the regular course. Thus, the allegation in the 263 proceedings that the Ld. AO has not examined the income offered amounting to Rs. 2.30 crore is only in the grab of change of opinion by the Ld.PCIT. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT-8, Mumbai vs. Sumatichand

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

72,04,064/-. In addition, the assessing officer also disallowed certain expenses towards cost of improvement of the aforesaid land sold during the year under consideration while computing the capital gain amounting to Rs.1,54,07,417/- The Assessing Officer held that since the assessee was equal co-owner of such property, the assessee’s share of expenses

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

72,04,064/-. In addition, the assessing officer also disallowed certain expenses towards cost of improvement of the aforesaid land sold during the year under consideration while computing the capital gain amounting to Rs.1,54,07,417/- The Assessing Officer held that since the assessee was equal co-owner of such property, the assessee’s share of expenses

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

72,04,064/-. In addition, the assessing officer also disallowed certain expenses towards cost of improvement of the aforesaid land sold during the year under consideration while computing the capital gain amounting to Rs.1,54,07,417/- The Assessing Officer held that since the assessee was equal co-owner of such property, the assessee’s share of expenses