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.

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 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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

7 M/s. Chandan Infratech Ltd. vs. ITO the same cannot be accepted. Therefore the A.O. is justified in treating the profit from sale of share as business income. The ground is dismissed. 7.7 The appellant has also taken the alternative ground that the Long Term Capital Loss of Rs. 1,94,90,83/- on sale of Long Term Capital Assets

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)

94 (Ahd); ➤ Kapil Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT-(2019) 178 ITD 255 (Del); ➤CIT vs. J. R. Subramanya Bhat (1987) 165 ITR 571 (Karnataka); ➤CIT vs. H. K. Kapoor-(1998) 234 ITR 753 (Allahabad); ➤CIT vs. Bharti Mishra-(2014) 41 taxmann.com 50 (Del); 6.1. Accordingly, Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in restricting the claim

SHRI ASHOKKUMAR KHIMRAJ,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1247/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Shri Ashokkumar Khimraj Ito, बनाम/ Prop. Ridhi Siddhi Ward – 3(1), Vs. Enterprises, 21, Shitalkunj Ahmedabad. Society, Rambaug Road, Ahmedabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afdpk 6404 N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Parin Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vinod Talwani, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

gains are dealt with under section 2(42A) and section 2(42B). 3. Trading asset is dealt with under section 28 of the Act. 4. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) through Instruction No. 1827, dated August 31, 1989 had brought to the notice of the Assessing Officers that there is a distinction between shares held as investment (capital

MRS. SHIKHA SANJAYA SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

7. The fact that the capital asset in question, namely, the shares of Suashish Diamond Ltd. was covered under section 10(38) of the Act was not in dispute. That being the position, by virtue of section 10(38) of the Act, in computing the total income of previous year, any income covered under such clause shall not be included

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

7,45,07,478 14,46,47,732 1,94,62,000 payments Total Assessed 5 25,67,83,317 39,25,26,792 86,11,44,005 45,66,39,878 Income 6 Rounded off 25,67,83,320 39,25,26,790 86,11,44,000 45,66,39,880 IT(SS)A No.1/Ahd/2023 Kailash Ramavatar Goenka

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

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

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

JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

94,28,649/-, against the returned income of Rs.27,56,70,614/-, by making various additions/disallowances of Rs.13,19,12,485/- as capital gains under normal provisions of the Act and Rs.129,12,24,408/- as book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed appeal before

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

94,28,649/-, against the returned income of Rs.27,56,70,614/-, by making various additions/disallowances of Rs.13,19,12,485/- as capital gains under normal provisions of the Act and Rs.129,12,24,408/- as book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed appeal before

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section, the original cost should be takes as the cost of acquisition while determining the income under the head capital gain. Now coming to the 2nd question arising for our consideration, what 95. should be the period of holding for computing the capital gain with respect to shares acquired by the assessee upon the conversion of both membership cards

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section, the original cost should be takes as the cost of acquisition while determining the income under the head capital gain. Now coming to the 2nd question arising for our consideration, what 95. should be the period of holding for computing the capital gain with respect to shares acquired by the assessee upon the conversion of both membership cards