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

gains under section 45 of the Act, and distribution of new shares allotted by Sterling as being distributed by the assessee to its shareholders as dividend under section 2(22) of the Act. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR submitted as under:- • the assessee has not transferred the treasury undertaking

MR. JOBANJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO. WARD-3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.264/Ahd/2019\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16\nMr. Jobanji Thakor\nThe ITO\nF-40, Abugiri Society\nबनाम / Ward-3(2)(2)\nTal. Daskroi, Jagatpur\nv/s.\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad - 382 470\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AKNPT 2930 M\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nShri Mehul K. Patel, AR\nRevenue by :\nShri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date of

capital gain computation. The\nmain reason for scrutiny was that the sale consideration shown in the Income\nTax Return (ITR) was lower than the valuation by the Stamp Duty Authority.\nConsequently, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 18.09.2017\nand served via speed post, with a hearing fixed on 03.10.2017. Subsequently,\nnotice under Section

SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital gain on sale of shares by assessee was an arranged affair to convert its own unaccounted money and thus, exemption claimed under section 10(38) on sale of shares had rightly been disallowed. 25. In view of the above judicial precedents as applied in the assessee set of facts as discussed in the preceding paragraphs

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital gain on sale of shares by assessee was an arranged affair to convert its own unaccounted money and thus, exemption claimed under section 10(38) on sale of shares had rightly been disallowed. 25. In view of the above judicial precedents as applied in the assessee set of facts as discussed in the preceding paragraphs

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital gain on sale of shares by assessee was an arranged affair to convert its own unaccounted money and thus, exemption claimed under section 10(38) on sale of shares had rightly been disallowed. 25. In view of the above judicial precedents as applied in the assessee set of facts as discussed in the preceding paragraphs

SHAILESH NATVARLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19

capital gain at Rs.24,96,236/-, allowed deduction under section 54 of Rs.18,00,000/-, and brought the balance capital

RAMSINHJI MERAJI VANZARA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

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

section 54B(2). 8. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The undisputed facts from the record are that:- (i) the purchase deed for the new agricultural land was executed on 14.08.2019, (ii) the cheques for the entire consideration were issued on the same date and (iii) the assessee maintained adequate

UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Unimed Technologies Limited Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Survey No.22 & 22, Vs. Vadodara. Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B Asstt.Year : 2016-17 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Unimed Technologies Limited Vadodara. Vs. Survey No.22 & 22, Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

96,245/- made on account of software expenditure holding it as allowable expenditure under section 37(1), without appreciating the findings of the AO that the expenditure gave enduring benefit to the assessee? 2. Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, RACE COURSE vs. UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, HALOL

Accordingly dismissed.\n18.9 Based on the findings and conclusions set out hereinabove, the\nappeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by\nthe assessee is partly allowed

section 37(1) was also rejected by the CIT(A), following the Revenue's\nstand that such cess was not allowable as deduction from business income\nunder the prevailing interpretation of the law.\n5.\nAggrieved by the relief granted, the Revenue has filed appeal in ITA\nNo. 632/Ahd/2024 raising the following grounds:\n1. Whether, on facts and in the circumstances

SUDAMA FARMS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four Appels are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

96,047/- was taxed as capital gain on sale of land during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.12,82,167/- as Long Term Capital Gain thereby observing that in assessee’s case Section

SEJAL FARMS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four Appels are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

96,047/- was taxed as capital gain on sale of land during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.12,82,167/- as Long Term Capital Gain thereby observing that in assessee’s case Section

SHALIMAR FARMS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four Appels are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

96,047/- was taxed as capital gain on sale of land during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.12,82,167/- as Long Term Capital Gain thereby observing that in assessee’s case Section

SHANTI FARMS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four Appels are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

96,047/- was taxed as capital gain on sale of land during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.12,82,167/- as Long Term Capital Gain thereby observing that in assessee’s case Section

VIRAL RAJENDRA PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD-1., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2018-19

Section Total Exemption claimed Purchase/deposit Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) NHAI BOND 54EC 50,00,000 50,00,000 Land Purchase 7,30,00,000 6,82,74,989 Registration Fees 7,31,000 54F Stamp Duty Value 35,77,000 TOTAL VALUE 7,73,08,000 Amount deposited in designated capital gain account

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. DOLPHIN LABORATORIES LTD.,( NOW KNOWN AS INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.7,44,598/- out of Misc. expenses, on the basis of unsubstantiated claim of assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. DOLPHIN LABORATORIES LTD.,( NOW KNOWN AS INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.7,44,598/- out of Misc. expenses, on the basis of unsubstantiated claim of assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DEVRAJ HARSHADRAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gain arose with regard to sale of the aforementioned property.” 7. Even Ld. D.R. has accepted that the aforesaid addition is liable to be deleted in terms of aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A), in the case of co-owner of this property. 8. In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. DEVRAJ HARSHADRAY PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gain arose with regard to sale of the aforementioned property.” 7. Even Ld. D.R. has accepted that the aforesaid addition is liable to be deleted in terms of aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A), in the case of co-owner of this property. 8. In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Ground