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.

92,94,293/- in the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 29. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has captive power plants at Ranjinagar and Dahej. At Dahej, assessee has coal based captive power plant and gas based captive power plant. According to the AO, it did not claim deduction under section 80IA originally

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.

92,94,293/- in the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 29. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has captive power plants at Ranjinagar and Dahej. At Dahej, assessee has coal based captive power plant and gas based captive power plant. According to the AO, it did not claim deduction under section 80IA originally

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.

92,94,293/- in the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 29. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has captive power plants at Ranjinagar and Dahej. At Dahej, assessee has coal based captive power plant and gas based captive power plant. According to the AO, it did not claim deduction under section 80IA originally

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.

92,94,293/- in the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 29. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has captive power plants at Ranjinagar and Dahej. At Dahej, assessee has coal based captive power plant and gas based captive power plant. According to the AO, it did not claim deduction under section 80IA originally

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.

92,94,293/- in the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 29. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has captive power plants at Ranjinagar and Dahej. At Dahej, assessee has coal based captive power plant and gas based captive power plant. According to the AO, it did not claim deduction under section 80IA originally

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

92,94,293/- in the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 29. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has captive power plants at Ranjinagar and Dahej. At Dahej, assessee has coal based captive power plant and gas based captive power plant. According to the AO, it did not claim deduction under section 80IA originally

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

92,94,293/- in the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 29. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has captive power plants at Ranjinagar and Dahej. At Dahej, assessee has coal based captive power plant and gas based captive power plant. According to the AO, it did not claim deduction under section 80IA originally

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain is leviable in his hand. 23. On consideration of the above, we find that the ld.AO has made reference to the details in an incomplete manner. He made reference to the details of block no.73 on page no.49. This detail is being referred with an idea to harbor a belief that rate in the area was prevalent

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain is leviable in his hand. 23. On consideration of the above, we find that the ld.AO has made reference to the details in an incomplete manner. He made reference to the details of block no.73 on page no.49. This detail is being referred with an idea to harbor a belief that rate in the area was prevalent

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain is leviable in his hand. 23. On consideration of the above, we find that the ld.AO has made reference to the details in an incomplete manner. He made reference to the details of block no.73 on page no.49. This detail is being referred with an idea to harbor a belief that rate in the area was prevalent

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain is leviable in his hand. 23. On consideration of the above, we find that the ld.AO has made reference to the details in an incomplete manner. He made reference to the details of block no.73 on page no.49. This detail is being referred with an idea to harbor a belief that rate in the area was prevalent

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain is leviable in his hand. 23. On consideration of the above, we find that the ld.AO has made reference to the details in an incomplete manner. He made reference to the details of block no.73 on page no.49. This detail is being referred with an idea to harbor a belief that rate in the area was prevalent

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain is leviable in his hand. 23. On consideration of the above, we find that the ld.AO has made reference to the details in an incomplete manner. He made reference to the details of block no.73 on page no.49. This detail is being referred with an idea to harbor a belief that rate in the area was prevalent

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain is leviable in his hand. 23. On consideration of the above, we find that the ld.AO has made reference to the details in an incomplete manner. He made reference to the details of block no.73 on page no.49. This detail is being referred with an idea to harbor a belief that rate in the area was prevalent

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain is leviable in his hand. 23. On consideration of the above, we find that the ld.AO has made reference to the details in an incomplete manner. He made reference to the details of block no.73 on page no.49. This detail is being referred with an idea to harbor a belief that rate in the area was prevalent

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain is leviable in his hand. 23. On consideration of the above, we find that the ld.AO has made reference to the details in an incomplete manner. He made reference to the details of block no.73 on page no.49. This detail is being referred with an idea to harbor a belief that rate in the area was prevalent

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 gain. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in not accepting the contention of the appellant that the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000 received from Mr. Pawan Jalan was part of internal circulation and therefore, not unexplained receipt at all. 7. Alternatively and without prejudice, such

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

capital account. The liability is still standing in the books of account. The Hon'ble Gujarat high court in the case of commissioner of income tax Vs. Chetan Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2004) 267 ITR 770 while dealing with both section i.e. 41(1) of the IT. Act held that, "Before section 41(1) can be invoked, it is necessary that