THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL ENGINEERING & GALVANIZERS,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

1. 2011-12 DCIT, Vishal Engineering and Circle – 6, Galvanizers, Ahmedabad. 73, Block No.404/428/429, Ahwamegh Industrial Estate, Changodar, Tal: Sanand, Ahmedabad – 382 213. (PAN NO. AAEFV 9722 A) 2. CO No.271/Ahd/2014 2011-12 Vishal DCIT, (in ITA No.2316/Ahd/2014) Engineering Circle – 6, Ahmedabad. & Galvanizers. 3. 2008-09 --do-- --do-- 4. 2008-09 The ACIT Vishal Engineering & Circle – 3(2), Galvanizers, Ahmedabad

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS SECURITIES LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHANDWALA INTEGRATED FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Capital Gain needs to be accepted. We accordingly order so and allow the respective Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2010-11and 2011-12 and dismiss Ground No.7 & 5 of Revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

capital expenditure or personal expenditure of the assessee, and (d) expenditure must be laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession. The expression “wholly” employed in section 37 refers to quantification of expenditure while expression “exclusively” refers to the motive, objective and purpose of the expenditure. 14. Thus, if the nature of this expenditure

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

capital expenditure or personal expenditure of the assessee, and (d) expenditure must be laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession. The expression “wholly” employed in section 37 refers to quantification of expenditure while expression “exclusively” refers to the motive, objective and purpose of the expenditure. 14. Thus, if the nature of this expenditure

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. INDO COLCHEM LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital expenditure or revenue expenditure with copy of ledger. The name of the party with address, nature of expenses, amount incurred, TDS made etc including CA Certificate for foreign remittances separately were also called for. Subsequently, the details of commission payment, details of services rendered by those parties to whom the commission was paid and proof of services rendered

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. INDO COLCHEM PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

73,878 to Afras-UAE in this category. 23. There is no dispute that there is no specific provision for taxation of fees for technical services in India Thailand tax treaty and India UAE tax treaty. There is also no dispute that GMS-Thailand and Afras-UAE did not have any permanent establishments in India. Clearly, therefore, income

KARNAVATI ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

73,878 to Afras-UAE in this category. 23. There is no dispute that there is no specific provision for taxation of fees for technical services in India Thailand tax treaty and India UAE tax treaty. There is also no dispute that GMS-Thailand and Afras-UAE did not have any permanent establishments in India. Clearly, therefore, income

AARK INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of Section 72, or sub-section (2) of Section 73

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

capital gains) after 1st Oct., 2004. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the Revenue authorities and allow the claim of the assessee. 22. Respectfully following the views so taken by the coordinate bench, we uphold the plea of the assessee. The action of the Assessing Officer on this point is reversed, and the set off of loss carried forward

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

capital gains) after 1st Oct., 2004. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the Revenue authorities and allow the claim of the assessee. 22. Respectfully following the views so taken by the coordinate bench, we uphold the plea of the assessee. The action of the Assessing Officer on this point is reversed, and the set off of loss carried forward

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

capital gains) after 1st Oct., 2004. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the Revenue authorities and allow the claim of the assessee. 22. Respectfully following the views so taken by the coordinate bench, we uphold the plea of the assessee. The action of the Assessing Officer on this point is reversed, and the set off of loss carried forward