TORRENT INVESTMENTS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TORRENT INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

set off of the same against Short Term Capital Gain and in effect, therefore, the Short Term Capital Gain returned by the assessee was short assessed to the extent of Short Term Capital Loss

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD vs. JHAVERI SANDEEP BIPINCHANDRA (HUF), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2016-17 Jhaveri Sandeep Income Tax Officer, Vs. Bipinchandra (Huf), Ward-5(3)(1), 21, Crest Nutan Laxmi Soc., Ahmedabad 9Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400049 Pan : Aachj 0855 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Pune-12 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 24.08.2023 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 Raised By The Department Reads As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Treating The Income Of Rs. 54,49,539/- As Short Term Capital Gain Instead Of Business Income.” 3. The Issue Raised In The Above Ground Relates To The Short Term Capital Gain Returned By The Assessee, On The Transactions Of Dealing In Shares, As Ito Vs Jhaveri Sandeep Bipinchandra Huf Ay : 2016-17 2

Loss account does not empower the AO to tax the same as business income. ITO Vs Jhaveri Sandeep Bipinchandra HUF AY : 2016-17 4 5.7 It is noted by the AO that there are four to five transactions every day. This is factually incorrect. As can be seen from the details of purchase and sale of shares

SURESH KANTILAL THAKKAR,BANASKANTHA vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and the Assessing

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

set off the Long Term Capital Losses on sale of shares of ECL against Long Term Capital Gains on sale

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 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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

set of facts is liable to be deleted. 46. In response, the Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observations made by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. 47. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of order passed by Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

set of facts is liable to be deleted. 46. In response, the Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observations made by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. 47. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of order passed by Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

set of facts is liable to be deleted. 46. In response, the Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observations made by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. 47. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of order passed by Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

set of facts is liable to be deleted. 46. In response, the Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observations made by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. 47. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of order passed by Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

set of facts is liable to be deleted. 46. In response, the Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observations made by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. 47. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of order passed by Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

set of facts is liable to be deleted. 46. In response, the Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observations made by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. 47. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of order passed by Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

set of facts is liable to be deleted. 46. In response, the Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observations made by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. 47. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of order passed by Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

set of facts is liable to be deleted. 46. In response, the Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observations made by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. 47. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of order passed by Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

set of facts is liable to be deleted. 46. In response, the Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observations made by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. 47. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of order passed by Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad

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

loss account filed and noticed that assessee has share capital and reserves funds totalling of Rs. 146,71,08,964/- as on 31st March, 2008. As per balance sheet as on 31st March, 2008, the assessee has secured loan amount was Rs. 5,54,55,955/- which was Rs. 3,73,068,602/-as on 31 March, 2007. We have

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

loss account filed and noticed that assessee has share capital and reserves funds totalling of Rs. 146,71,08,964/- as on 31st March, 2008. As per balance sheet as on 31st March, 2008, the assessee has secured loan amount was Rs. 5,54,55,955/- which was Rs. 3,73,068,602/-as on 31 March, 2007. We have

FALGUNI S. MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

losses in \"futures and options\" were\neligible for set-off against “short term capital gains\". However, this\nspecific request of the assessee

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ARDOR OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

gain on account of the said transaction was shown and the same entirely set off against loss incurred on commodity transaction. During assessment proceedings, NPPL, the assessee, was asked to prove the genuineness of the commodity loss claimed by it, which the assessee contended was bogus. It was further stated that even the capital