SHRI KAUSHALKUMAR GANGARAM PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(12), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

Section 2(14)(iii) of the IT. Act,1961 and Long Term Capital Gain arisen on it is liable for tax. The computation of Long Term Capital Gain arisen on sale immovable property in question is as under: SI. No. Block No. Transfer Net Sales Purchase Indexed Share of Long Sale Term Cost Consideratio Consideratio C.O.I. Capital Gain Consideratio

SHRI RAMESHKUMAR TRIKAMLAL PADHIYAR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, CIRCLE-7,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.322/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Shri Rameshkumar Trikamlal Padhiyar Vs. Jcit, Cir.7 B-604, Prayag Apts., Ahmedabad. Opp: Nirma Vihar School Bodakdev Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Ackpp 6965 H

capital gains where it has not been allowed in computation of income from house property in past. As per the judgment passed in the case of CIT v. Mithlesh Kumari, (1973) 92 ITR (Del. HC) it was held that the actual cost of the asset need not be the only those costs incurred on the date of acquisition. The Delhi

BHANUPRASAD MAGANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

928/- and paid capital gain tax, which was accepted by the Revenue. For the present Assessment Year 2015-16 assessee offered LTCG of Rs. 1,26,80,990/- and also claimed exemption u/s. 54F of Rs. 75,16,000/- and paid appropriate taxes on the balance capital gains. The assessee being an individual and the Partnership firm is a different

INOX RENEWABLES LIMITED,VADODARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE1(1)(2), , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1731/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Inox Renewables Ltd. Vs. Acit, Cir.1(1)(2) Vadodara. Abs Towers 2Nd Floor Old Padra Road Vadodara 390 007 Pan : Aacci 4628 K

section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee-company was incorporated on 11.11.2010 and 99.98% of equity capital was held by holding company viz. M/s.Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd.(GFL). According to the assessee, it has acquired wind energy division of GFL during the accounting year relevant to this assessment year. It claimed depreciation. However, its claim

KOTHARI SANJAY MANILAL, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 698/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19)

Section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) on 17.03.2021, wherein the following additions were made: (i) Addition on account of long term capital gain – Rs.12,26,32,248/- (ii) Disallowance of interest expenses claimed u/s.57 of the Act – Rs.58,40,796/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

capital gains\n11.\nBefore us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that this ground is\nrelevant only if ground number 14A and ground related to brokerage charges\nare allowed in favour of the Revenue, in the appeal filed by the Department.\nITA No. 954/Ahd/2016, 1315/Ahd/2016,\n1807/Ahd/2017 & 2033/Ahd/2017\nAmbalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT\n& DCIT/ACIT vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains 11. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that this ground is relevant only if ground number 14A and ground related to brokerage charges are allowed in favour of the Revenue, in the appeal filed by the Department. ITA No. 954/Ahd/2016, 1315/Ahd/2016, 1807/Ahd/2017 & 2033/Ahd/2017 Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT & DCIT/ACIT vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Asst

THE ASST. CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains 11. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that this ground is relevant only if ground number 14A and ground related to brokerage charges are allowed in favour of the Revenue, in the appeal filed by the Department. ITA No. 954/Ahd/2016, 1315/Ahd/2016, 1807/Ahd/2017 & 2033/Ahd/2017 Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT & DCIT/ACIT vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Asst

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

capital gains\n11. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that this ground is\nrelevant only if ground number 14A and ground related to brokerage charges\nare allowed in favour of the Revenue, in the appeal filed by the Department.\nITA No. 954/Ahd/2016, 1315/Ahd/2016,\n1807/Ahd/2017 & 2033/Ahd/2017\nAmbalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT\n& DCIT/ACIT vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

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

Section 5. However, in any such litigation suit SPIL agrees to assist SPGI, without assuming any monetary obligation. 4.3 Legal Compliance. SPIL hereby undertakes to comply with all requirements of law for obtaining various licenses, approvals, permissions and no objection certificates for meeting all legal obligations in respect of any matter ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

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

Section 5. However, in any such litigation suit SPIL agrees to assist SPGI, without assuming any monetary obligation. 4.3 Legal Compliance. SPIL hereby undertakes to comply with all requirements of law for obtaining various licenses, approvals, permissions and no objection certificates for meeting all legal obligations in respect of any matter ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

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

Section 5. However, in any such litigation suit SPIL agrees to assist SPGI, without assuming any monetary obligation. 4.3 Legal Compliance. SPIL hereby undertakes to comply with all requirements of law for obtaining various licenses, approvals, permissions and no objection certificates for meeting all legal obligations in respect of any matter ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

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

Section 5. However, in any such litigation suit SPIL agrees to assist SPGI, without assuming any monetary obligation. 4.3 Legal Compliance. SPIL hereby undertakes to comply with all requirements of law for obtaining various licenses, approvals, permissions and no objection certificates for meeting all legal obligations in respect of any matter ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories

VIMLABEN GUNVANTRAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2016-17

928/-. The Assessing Officer observed that as per the valuation report received from the DVO the assessee’s share A.Y. 2016-17 Page 2 of 4 at 83.50% in the said property worked out to Rs.2,46,95,125/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition under Section 56(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.22

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. ASTRAL PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES,, BARODA

In the result, appeal, the appeal and cross-objection, both are dismissed

Bench: The Ao U/S 195(2) Of The Act, Though It Was Obligation Of The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Law In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Itself Has Deducted Service Tax

928/- to M/s. Urja International, USA, without withholding any tax from the related payments. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee ought to have deducted tax at source from the commission payments since the commission so paid is exigible to tax under the hands of the recipient in India. The stand of the assessee that the services

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. ASTRAL PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES,, BARODA

In the result, appeal, the appeal and cross-objection, both are dismissed

Bench: The Ao U/S 195(2) Of The Act, Though It Was Obligation Of The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Law In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Itself Has Deducted Service Tax From The Payments Made To M/S. Urja International, Usa Which Proves That The

928/- to M/s. Urja International, USA, without withholding any tax from the related payments. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee ought to have deducted tax at source from the commission payments since the commission so paid is exigible to tax under the hands of the recipient in India. The stand of the assessee that the services

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

gaining businesses from them. Accordingly the learned CIT-A was pleased to delete the addition made by the AO on account of adjustment for the interest on the advances given to the AEs namely “Jina Pharmaceuticals, INC USA” and Lambda Therapeutic Research, SP Z.O.O Poland” by observing that the assessee was able to generate the business and income from such

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

gaining businesses from them. Accordingly the learned CIT-A was pleased to delete the addition made by the AO on account of adjustment for the interest on the advances given to the AEs namely “Jina Pharmaceuticals, INC USA” and Lambda Therapeutic Research, SP Z.O.O Poland” by observing that the assessee was able to generate the business and income from such