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.

long term capital 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 DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. CHANDRAKANT SOMABHAI PATEL (HUF), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

long term 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

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

long term capital gain had in fact been claimed on a depreciable business asset, and was therefore in the nature

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

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

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

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

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.

long-term capital gain. 11.1 On question by the AO, the assessee contended that it had no experience of real estate business and furthermore it failed to find out any single buyer for the impugned factory. Therefore, the assessee decided to sale the land in parts from the financial year 2012-13 and the income thereon was offered under

SHRI HEMANG CHIMANBHAI POKAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

long term capital gain on sale of land was beyond his domain as per section 147 of the Act. 7. A bare perusal of the provisions of section 147 reveals that the jurisdiction of the AO is confined to assess issues on which he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and it is only if during

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

long-term capital gain. 5.2 The learned CIT-A after considering the submission of the assessee and the remand report of the AO confirmed the order of the AO by observing that as on the date of sale, the status of the impugned land was as nonagricultural. Therefore, it was the nonagricultural land which was transferred by the assessee. Therefore

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

long-term capital gain. 5.2 The learned CIT-A after considering the submission of the assessee and the remand report of the AO confirmed the order of the AO by observing that as on the date of sale, the status of the impugned land was as nonagricultural. Therefore, it was the nonagricultural land which was transferred by the assessee. Therefore

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

long-term capital gain. 5.2 The learned CIT-A after considering the submission of the assessee and the remand report of the AO confirmed the order of the AO by observing that as on the date of sale, the status of the impugned land was as nonagricultural. Therefore, it was the nonagricultural land which was transferred by the assessee. Therefore

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

long-term capital gain. 5.2 The learned CIT-A after considering the submission of the assessee and the remand report of the AO confirmed the order of the AO by observing that as on the date of sale, the status of the impugned land was as nonagricultural. Therefore, it was the nonagricultural land which was transferred by the assessee. Therefore

RAMESHBHAI ARVINDBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Long Term Capital Gain is confirmed for sale of land situated at Bhaniyara village and whereas the disallowance of Rs. 6,88,742/- as Short Term Capital Gain is deleted for the land situated at Bhavpura village as the former is within 8 k.m. from VMC limit whereas the latter is outside of 8 k.m. from VMC limit. Thus, this

RAMESHBHAI ARVINDBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Long Term Capital Gain is confirmed for sale of land situated at Bhaniyara village and whereas the disallowance of Rs. 6,88,742/- as Short Term Capital Gain is deleted for the land situated at Bhavpura village as the former is within 8 k.m. from VMC limit whereas the latter is outside of 8 k.m. from VMC limit. Thus, this

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

depreciation against income from short-term 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