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

SUMIT H BHAGCHANDANI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 54F is a beneficial provision, but the benefit is subject to fulfilment of statutory conditions. The Court held that while deposit in the Capital Gains Account Scheme preserves the exemption, the quantum of deduction must still be computed in accordance with the formula prescribed under the Act. Similarly, Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant

SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 132(4A) are applicable in case of Shri Shirish Shah and not the appellant and since the said burden has not been discharged by Shri Shirish Shah, the disallowance of loss requires to be cancelled/deleted. In view of the above, the impugned addition of Rs. 1,52,20,891/- being loss incurred in trading of shares of Chandni Textile

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 132(4A) are applicable in case of Shri Shirish Shah and not the appellant and since the said burden has not been discharged by Shri Shirish Shah, the disallowance of loss requires to be cancelled/deleted. In view of the above, the impugned addition of Rs. 1,52,20,891/- being loss incurred in trading of shares of Chandni Textile

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 132(4A) are applicable in case of Shri Shirish Shah and not the appellant and since the said burden has not been discharged by Shri Shirish Shah, the disallowance of loss requires to be cancelled/deleted. In view of the above, the impugned addition of Rs. 1,52,20,891/- being loss incurred in trading of shares of Chandni Textile

SHRI KIRANKUMAR RASIKLAL SANGHVI,DEESA vs. THE PR.CIT-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, 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) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

section 54F of the Act. We shall elaborate the same hereunder. 4 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 5. The assessee had claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Act to the tune of Rs.3,86,86,482/- from capital gains earned of Rs.5,73

THE VARDHMAN STAMPINGS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 73 of\nthe Act would be applicable. This is so because it is not the\ncompany whose gross total income consisted mainly of income\nwhich is chargeable under the heads:-\n•\n\"Interest on securities\",\n• \"Income from house property\",\n• \"Capital gains

THE VARDHMAN STAMPINGS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 73 of\nthe Act would be applicable. This is so because it is not the\ncompany whose gross total income consisted mainly of income\nwhich is chargeable under the heads:-\n•\n\"Interest on securities\",\n\"Income from house property\",\n\"Capital gains

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 45(2) of the act, the notional short term capital gain arising from transfer by way of conversion of capital asset into stock in trade at fair market value of Rs. 5167.31 lakh after deducting cost of acquisition of Rs. 777.24 lakh works out to Rs. 4390.07 lakh ( Rs. 5167.3.1 lakh less Rs. 777.24 lakh), chargeable

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DEVAL PRANAV PATEL L/H. OF LATE SHRI PRANAV MAHENDRABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

73,332/- which has been considered as sales consideration of capital gain offered to tax under short term capital gains. The Assessing Officer observed that as per the information received, the assessee has sold shares of scrip of Kushal Group Companies which has been claimed exempt under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

Appeal is allowed in ITA 978/Ahd/2025 and ITA\n978/Ahd/2025 as well

73,078/- made\nunder section 68, thereby allowing exemption under section 10(38).\nConsequently, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeals for both years,\nholding that the AO's additions were based on presumptions without\nevidence, and that the assessee had conclusively proved the genuineness of\nthe transactions through documentary record and compliance with statutory\nnorms.\n5. The Department

GUNVANTBHAI NARANDAS PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

73,026/-, while finalizing the assessment. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: 5.3.1 The appellant had filed his return of income on 31.3.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 2,24,860/-. The appellant had not disclosed/declared any income on account of said transaction. As per the information available with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. GIRISHKUMAR AMRATLAL BHANDARI HUF, HIMATNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

73,078/- made\nunder section 68, thereby allowing exemption under section 10(38).\nConsequently, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeals for both years,\nholding that the AO's additions were based on presumptions without\nevidence, and that the assessee had conclusively proved the genuineness of\nthe transactions through documentary record and compliance with statutory\nnorms.\n5. The Department

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

73,078/- made\nunder section 68, thereby allowing exemption under section 10(38).\nConsequently, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeals for both years,\nholding that the AO's additions were based on presumptions without\nevidence, and that the assessee had conclusively proved the genuineness of\nthe transactions through documentary record and compliance with statutory\nnorms.\n5.\nThe Department

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#।]

73. CO 2018-19 Sagar Shivkumar Revenue 40/Ahd/2025 Gogia 74. 86/Ahd/2024 2018-19 Revenue Shivam Associates E-TF-02, Sumel Business Park-III Opp.New Cloth Market Ahmedabad-380002 PAN: ADLFS 6248 J 75. CO 2018-19 Shivam Associates Revenue 5/Ahd/2025 (address same as above) Assessee by : Shri Dhinal Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख

JAYESHKUMAR BALDEVBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15. I.T.A No. 595/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 2 Jayeshkumar Baldevbhai Patel vs. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal: 1.1 The order passed u/s. 250 on 15.02.2024 for A.Y.2014-15 by NFAC, Delhi upholding the addition

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)

section 139(1) in respect to capital 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

KISHORI PANKAJ AGARWAL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VADODARA, GUJARAT

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. ITA No. 623/Ahd/2023 [Kishori Pankaj Agarwal vs. ITO] A.Y. 2015-16 - 2 – 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well