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 or sub-section (2) of section 73-A, or sub- section (1) or sub- section (3) of section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74-A, he may furnish, within

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on “protective basis” in the hands of assessee in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land based on Pages 9-22 of Annexure BS-24 found during

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on “protective basis” in the hands of assessee in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land based on Pages 9-22 of Annexure BS-24 found during

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on “protective basis” in the hands of assessee in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land based on Pages 9-22 of Annexure BS-24 found during

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on “protective basis” in the hands of assessee in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land based on Pages 9-22 of Annexure BS-24 found during

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on “protective basis” in the hands of assessee in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land based on Pages 9-22 of Annexure BS-24 found during

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on “protective basis” in the hands of assessee in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land based on Pages 9-22 of Annexure BS-24 found during

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on “protective basis” in the hands of assessee in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land based on Pages 9-22 of Annexure BS-24 found during

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on “protective basis” in the hands of assessee in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land based on Pages 9-22 of Annexure BS-24 found during

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on “protective basis” in the hands of assessee in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land based on Pages 9-22 of Annexure BS-24 found during

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

1(i)(b) to section 2(42A), which provides that the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner must be included in the period of holding of the assessee. Consequently, the Hon’ble High Court held that while computing the capital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset acquired by the assessee through gift

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 gains utilized towards purchase of new asset before furnishing of return of income before either under s.139(1) or under s.139(4) of the Act will be deemed to be sufficient compliance of Section 54(2) of the Act.” 9

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

1) of the Act, filed dated 3rd November 2011 declared taxable income of Rs. ITA No.251/Ahd/2022 with 9 others A.Y. 2009-10 24 48,07,940/- which was accepted in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 29- 03-2017 was issued for reopening assessment

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

1) of the Act, filed dated 3rd November 2011 declared taxable income of Rs. ITA No.251/Ahd/2022 with 9 others A.Y. 2009-10 24 48,07,940/- which was accepted in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 29- 03-2017 was issued for reopening assessment

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

1) of the Act, filed dated 3rd November 2011 declared taxable income of Rs. ITA No.251/Ahd/2022 with 9 others A.Y. 2009-10 24 48,07,940/- which was accepted in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 29- 03-2017 was issued for reopening assessment

JAYSHREEBEN JAYANTIBHAI PALSANA,LIMBADIYA, BOTAD, GUJARAT vs. ITO WARD 1(9) BHAVANAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9)\nAhmedabad.\n(Applicant)\n(Responent)\nAssessee by\nShri Jagdish Kasodaria, AR\nRevenue by\nShri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing\n31/07/2025\nघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement:\n12/08/2025\nआदेश/ORDER\nPER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM:\nThis appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated\n15.04.2025 passed by the Office of Commissioner of Income

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 – [as per Return of income] Rs. 11,37,32,825/- D. Income from other sources [as per Return of income] Rs. 80,07,21,966/- Assessed Income Rs.18,14,03,03,585/- Brought forward losses of Rs. 2,41,44,65,028, Rs. NIL for A.Y. 2013-14 Adjusted fully by the Dept. while passing order

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

sections 54B and 54F of the Act. It was contended that the assessee had duly complied with all substantive conditions for claiming deduction and that the entire capital gains had been reinvested in eligible assets within the permissible time. Accordingly, it was submitted that the additions sustained by the CIT(A) be deleted, the long-term capital gain be accepted

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 14A was squarely covered by Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 178/283 Taxman 178/438 ITR 1/ [2021] 10 SCC 153 wherein it was held that since interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax-free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee's own funds