VISHAL EXPORTS OVERSEAS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground No.7 raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year:2009-10 Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., The Acit, Circle-8, 301 Sheel Complex, 4 Mayur Colony, Vs Ahmebada. Nr. Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan :Aaacv 2354 D (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms Urvashi Shodhan, Advocate Revenue By : Shria. P. Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 29/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

depreciation claim because windmills were sold for Rs.28,90,67,060/- which is much more than WDV of Rs.38,11,773/-. Infect after reducing complete WDV of Rs.38,11,773/-, there will be surplus of Rs.28,52,55,287/- (28,90,67,060 – 38,11,773) which is required to be considered as short term capital gain

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDBAD vs. ASHIF MEHBBOBELAHI RUSHNAIWALA, AHMEDABAD

depreciable assets being treated as short term capital gains, would be confined for the purposes of mode of computation of capital

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHANTI EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.884/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 D.C.I.T., Shanti Exports Pvt. Ltd., Circle-4,(1)(1), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Ahmedabad. Chiripal House, Satellite Road, Ahmedabad.

capital gains (including loss). This was accepted by the AO in earlier years. Further, it is the contention of the appellant that since it could not find any buyer for the total land hence there was no option for it but to divide the land into smaller plots. In order to divide the land into plots it was necessary

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. CHANDRAKANT SOMABHAI PATEL (HUF), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

capital gains on sale of a residential plot located at Divine Highland Co-op. Hsg. Service Society Ltd. The plot was purchased on 16/12/2006 for Rs. 14,00,000/- (copy of purchase deed places at pages 15 to 37 of PB) and was sold on 26/11/2014 for Rs.6 crores (copy of sale deed places at pages

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain. (ii) Scrutiny of records, it was noticed from the assets of the balance sheet for AY 2012- 13 that there was an agricultural land amounting to Rs. 1.73,25,167 (including land purchased during the year R.S. no. 665/P/l for Rs. 15.54,000) under the head investment. However, the balance sheet of the previous 'year

ATUL LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT (OSD), RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Took Us Through The Chronology Of Events Leading To The Rectification Order Passed U/S. 154 Of The Act ,Which Was Carried In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Same & Against Which The Assessee Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us. Ld. Counsel For The

Depreciation disallowed,,,...para 5 2,66,83,892/- 3)6xpenditure disallowed U/S.14A as per para 6 14,00,410/- 4) Irrecoverable balance written off as per para 7 16,26,668/- 5) Bad as per para 8 7,61,883/- Rs. 5,75,53,262/- Revised business income: Rs. 1,94,97,014/- Short term capital gain

SHRI CHAITANYA BANSIBHAI. NAGORI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

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

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

capital gains by assessee without considering any details related to working of indexed cost of acquisition - Principal Commissioner invoked section 263 and passed revisionary order setting aside matter to Assessing Officer for making fresh assessment - Whether in view of CBDT Instruction No. 7/2015, 20/2015 and 5/2016 and CBDT letter dated 30- 11-2017, it was established that Assessing Officer could

BABUBHAI MOTIBHAI CHAUDHARY,GANDHINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kamble

gains arising on transfer of a capital asset acquired by an assessee under an inheritance, indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to year in which previous owner first held the asset, and not from the year in which the assessee became owner of that asset. On the same reasoning, the assessee should also be entitled

SHAILESHBHAI KALABHAI CHAUDHARY,GANDHINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-4, GANDHINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kamble

gains arising on transfer of a capital asset acquired by an assessee under an inheritance, indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to year in which previous owner first held the asset, and not from the year in which the assessee became owner of that asset. On the same reasoning, the assessee should also be entitled

KANTABEN GOVABHAI PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, GANDHINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kamble

gains arising on transfer of a capital asset acquired by an assessee under an inheritance, indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to year in which previous owner first held the asset, and not from the year in which the assessee became owner of that asset. On the same reasoning, the assessee should also be entitled

SOMABHAI MOTIBHAI PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-4, GANDHINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kamble

gains arising on transfer of a capital asset acquired by an assessee under an inheritance, indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to year in which previous owner first held the asset, and not from the year in which the assessee became owner of that asset. On the same reasoning, the assessee should also be entitled

SHAMA AJAY PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(IT & TP), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shama Ajay Patel, Vs. 2, Chandroday Society, The Cit(It & Tp), Opp. Golden Triangle, Sp Ahmedabad Stadium Road, Navjivan Post, Ahmedabad-380014 Pan : Alxpp 5273 E अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It & Tp), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. "Cit(It & Tp)" For Short] Dated 08.02.2023, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit (It & Tp) Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Without Jurisdiction & Appropriate Powers Available Under The Act. It Is Submitted That The Order Passed U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As A.O. Has Neither Committed Any Error Nor It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. It Be Held Now.

gain on trading in scrips of 7 companies amounting to Rs.15,627/-, which included loss incurred also in some cases. Based on this reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer took a view that the trading in scrip of M/s. Kushal Limited was a genuine transaction. All these facts were on record before the ld. CIT (IT & TP) being part

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division