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

section 43B are not attracted. It is therefore prayed that the additions so made may kindly be deleted. 2.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D by AO to the extent of Rs.35,12,759/- out of total disallowance of Rs. 45,91,759/- on the alleged ground

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

section 43B are not attracted. It is therefore prayed that the additions so made may kindly be deleted. 2.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D by AO to the extent of Rs.35,12,759/- out of total disallowance of Rs. 45,91,759/- on the alleged ground

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

section 43B are not attracted. It is therefore prayed that the additions so made may kindly be deleted. 2.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D by AO to the extent of Rs.35,12,759/- out of total disallowance of Rs. 45,91,759/- on the alleged ground

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

section 43B are not attracted. It is therefore prayed that the additions so made may kindly be deleted. 2.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D by AO to the extent of Rs.35,12,759/- out of total disallowance of Rs. 45,91,759/- on the alleged ground

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

section 43B are not attracted. It is therefore prayed that the additions so made may kindly be deleted. 2.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D by AO to the extent of Rs.35,12,759/- out of total disallowance of Rs. 45,91,759/- on the alleged ground

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

section 43B are not attracted. It is therefore prayed that the additions so made may kindly be deleted. 2.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D by AO to the extent of Rs.35,12,759/- out of total disallowance of Rs. 45,91,759/- on the alleged ground

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

gains have been included in the other income. Provision for diminution in value of investment has been added back in the computation. Further, the assessee has itself added back Rs.20 lakhs u/s.14A on estimate basis in respect of tax free income earned on such investment. No deduction has been claimed under section 88E for the securities transaction tax paid during

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

gains have been included in the other income. Provision for diminution in value of investment has been added back in the computation. Further, the assessee has itself added back Rs.20 lakhs u/s.14A on estimate basis in respect of tax free income earned on such investment. No deduction has been claimed under section 88E for the securities transaction tax paid during

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

gains have been included in the other income. Provision for diminution in value of investment has been added back in the computation. Further, the assessee has itself added back Rs.20 lakhs u/s.14A on estimate basis in respect of tax free income earned on such investment. No deduction has been claimed under section 88E for the securities transaction tax paid during

THA ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

gains have been included in the other income. Provision for diminution in value of investment has been added back in the computation. Further, the assessee has itself added back Rs.20 lakhs u/s.14A on estimate basis in respect of tax free income earned on such investment. No deduction has been claimed under section 88E for the securities transaction tax paid during

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

gains have been included in the other income. Provision for diminution in value of investment has been added back in the computation. Further, the assessee has itself added back Rs.20 lakhs u/s.14A on estimate basis in respect of tax free income earned on such investment. No deduction has been claimed under section 88E for the securities transaction tax paid during

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

gains have been included in the other income. Provision for diminution in value of investment has been added back in the computation. Further, the assessee has itself added back Rs.20 lakhs u/s.14A on estimate basis in respect of tax free income earned on such investment. No deduction has been claimed under section 88E for the securities transaction tax paid during

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

gains have been included in the other income. Provision for diminution in value of investment has been added back in the computation. Further, the assessee has itself added back Rs.20 lakhs u/s.14A on estimate basis in respect of tax free income earned on such investment. No deduction has been claimed under section 88E for the securities transaction tax paid during

M/S. CHANDAN INFRATECH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

91,693 shares of SIL purchased before 31/03/2009. During the month of March 2010 assessee has purchased 32,76,952 shares of SIL and the same were sold between14/07/2010 to 19/07/2010. This clearly shows the assessee has traded in shares of SIL and earned huge profit and claimed the same as capital gain. Therefore, a show cause notice dated

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

91,52,000 Assets as on 31.3.2011 (b) 34,59,04,38,000 Avg. Assets [(a)+(b)/2] 35,92,97,95,000 C (i) expenditure directly relating to income which does 1,88,997 not form part of total income 58,07,04,000 (ii) Expenses incurred on X interest attributable to exempt

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

91,52,000 Assets as on 31.3.2011 (b) 34,59,04,38,000 Avg. Assets [(a)+(b)/2] 35,92,97,95,000 C (i) expenditure directly relating to income which does 1,88,997 not form part of total income 58,07,04,000 (ii) Expenses incurred on X interest attributable to exempt

CHINMAY GAURANGBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT (INTER.TAXA)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Capital Gain at Rs. Nil was declared. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny for examining the deductions claimed by the assessee under Section 54EC and 54F of the Act. On examination, the Assessing Officer found that the deduction under Section 54F was claimed by the assessee on account of investments made in the purchase

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

capital gain taxes u/s.45 of the Act is hereby confirmed. Further, I also agree with the stand taken by the A.O that on sale of assets by appellant to Sterling the sale consideration of Rs. 61,91,15,966/- of the transferred assets was to be received by the appellant from Sterling. Instead, Sterling had paid this amount to shareholders