THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BARODA vs. INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9: (B) "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9: (ia) thirty per cent of any sum payable to a resident, on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVIIB and such tax has not been deducted

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BARODA vs. INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9: (B) "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9: (ia) thirty per cent of any sum payable to a resident, on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVIIB and such tax has not been deducted

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

vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9: (B) "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9: (ia) thirty per cent of any sum payable to a resident, on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVIIB and such tax has not been deducted

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9: (B) "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9: (ia) thirty per cent of any sum payable to a resident, on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVIIB and such tax has not been deducted

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

vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9: Assessment Year: 2010-11 Page 15 of 27 (B) "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9: (ia) thirty per cent of any sum payable to a resident, on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CLARIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 295/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 The D.C.I.T, M/S Claris Lifesciences Limited, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. Claris Corporate Hq, Ahmedabad. Near Parimal Rly. Crossing, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacc6366Q

vi CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries Private Limited (Gauhati High Court) [262 ITR 0587] vii Komac Investments & Finance (P.) Ltd. V. ITO (2011) [142 TTJ 0308 (Mumbai] 6.2 Reading of these set of cases show that case laws cited mostly follow the judgement of Bombay HC in the case CIT vs ACE Builders (P.) Ltd.) [2006] 281 ITR 210 (Bombay

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

vi) of the Act. • The legislative intent was very clear from the fact that in section 49(1) of the Act, the cost of acquisition of the asset to the previous owner was expressly mentioned whereas in Explanation (iiii) of section 48, there was no reference to the period of holding of the previous owner. Instead, the cost

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

9 lakhs on the basis of the difference between the market value and the written down value. The Assessing Officer has taken the written down value as on 1st April, 1995 and he has taken the market value as on 8th November, 1995 (alleged date of transfer) and on that basis, he has computed the capital gains. However, as stated

M/S. VISHAL ENGINEERS & GALVANIZERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

9 lakhs on the basis of the difference between the market value and the written down value. The Assessing Officer has taken the written down value as on 1st April, 1995 and he has taken the market value as on 8th November, 1995 (alleged date of transfer) and on that basis, he has computed the capital gains. However, as stated

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL ENGINEERING & GALVANIZERS,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

9 lakhs on the basis of the difference between the market value and the written down value. The Assessing Officer has taken the written down value as on 1st April, 1995 and he has taken the market value as on 8th November, 1995 (alleged date of transfer) and on that basis, he has computed the capital gains. However, as stated

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

VI & CIT(Appeals)-10 (in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], Ahmedabad dated 28.1.2014, 13.08,2014, 1.02.2016, 26.10.2016 & 30.06.2017 respectively which are arising out of the order u/s 143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised

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

VI & CIT(Appeals)-10 (in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], Ahmedabad dated 28.1.2014, 13.08,2014, 1.02.2016, 26.10.2016 & 30.06.2017 respectively which are arising out of the order u/s 143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised

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

VI & CIT(Appeals)-10 (in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], Ahmedabad dated 28.1.2014, 13.08,2014, 1.02.2016, 26.10.2016 & 30.06.2017 respectively which are arising out of the order u/s 143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised

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

VI & CIT(Appeals)-10 (in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], Ahmedabad dated 28.1.2014, 13.08,2014, 1.02.2016, 26.10.2016 & 30.06.2017 respectively which are arising out of the order u/s 143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised

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

VI & CIT(Appeals)-10 (in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], Ahmedabad dated 28.1.2014, 13.08,2014, 1.02.2016, 26.10.2016 & 30.06.2017 respectively which are arising out of the order u/s 143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised

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

VI & CIT(Appeals)-10 (in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], Ahmedabad dated 28.1.2014, 13.08,2014, 1.02.2016, 26.10.2016 & 30.06.2017 respectively which are arising out of the order u/s 143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised

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

VI & CIT(Appeals)-10 (in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], Ahmedabad dated 28.1.2014, 13.08,2014, 1.02.2016, 26.10.2016 & 30.06.2017 respectively which are arising out of the order u/s 143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised

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

VI & CIT(Appeals)-10 (in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], Ahmedabad dated 28.1.2014, 13.08,2014, 1.02.2016, 26.10.2016 & 30.06.2017 respectively which are arising out of the order u/s 143(3) dated 31.03.2013, 26.02.2014,25.03.2015, 01.03.2016, 28.12.2016 28.03.2013 respectively framed by JCIT, Range-3, ACIT, Circle-3, ACIT Circle 1(3), DCIT, Circle 1(3) & JCIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds raised