THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. M/S. GUJARAT INFRA PIPES PVT. LTD.,, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

50C of the Act 6,71,29,538/- (vi) Disallowance on account of Excess Depreciation 4,58,137/- Claimed on Software Licenses (vii) Capitalization of Interest on Capital Work in Progress 47,37,168/- (viii) Disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act 60,517/-. 2.1. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee as Rs.7

SIRHIND STEELS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 713/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Sirhind Steel Ltd., P.C.I.T-4, 7Th Floor, Shalin Building, Vs. Ambawadi, Nr. Nehru Bridge Corner, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad.

section 50C of the Act which is verifiable from computation of total income attached herewith vide Annexure-5. 5. Details of Claim u/s.32(1) (iia) of Act (Sr. No.7) We have not claimed any additional depreciation

KAUSHA J. SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.1741/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Priti Jayesh Shah Dcit, Cent.Cir.2(3) 26, Elora Park Society Ahmedabad. Vs Naranpura, Ahmedabad. Pan : Ainps 3952 L

50C further provides that where the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed by any authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed shall

PRITI JAYESH SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.1741/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Priti Jayesh Shah Dcit, Cent.Cir.2(3) 26, Elora Park Society Ahmedabad. Vs Naranpura, Ahmedabad. Pan : Ainps 3952 L

50C further provides that where the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed by any authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed shall

KILLOLI R. SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.1741/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Priti Jayesh Shah Dcit, Cent.Cir.2(3) 26, Elora Park Society Ahmedabad. Vs Naranpura, Ahmedabad. Pan : Ainps 3952 L

50C further provides that where the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed by any authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed shall

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

50C of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee drew attention to pages 16 to 16 A of the paper book which is the distance certificated and population certificate issued by “Talati cum mantri” in respect of the impugned land. He further drew attention to page 30 of paper book containing the Google Maps showing the relevant distance

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

50C of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee drew attention to pages 16 to 16 A of the paper book which is the distance certificated and population certificate issued by “Talati cum mantri” in respect of the impugned land. He further drew attention to page 30 of paper book containing the Google Maps showing the relevant distance

SHRI ASHOK NATVARLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

depreciation. These facts were totally ignored by the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A). Merely not objecting cannot be the criteria as per Section 50C

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

50C of the Act. Thus the Ld.PCIT has found the assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act erroneous on an issue which did not form the basis of reopening the case of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act. 6. We find merit in the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that the assessment order passed

SHREE VAIDEHI IMPEX PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

depreciation was last claimed, instead of F.Y. 2006-07, being the actual year of acquisition of the asset. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in computing long-term capital gains amounting to Rs. 2,86,99,314/- by taking cost of acquisition for indexation

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

depreciable assets; clause (b) value of capital assets in respect of which whole expenditure has been allowed as a deduction under section 35AD of the Act, and clause(c) is a residuary clause in respect of assets which do not fall within (a) or clause (b) of this Explanation. Thus, scheme of this section would suggest that if sub-section

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

depreciable assets; clause (b) value of capital assets in respect of which whole expenditure has been allowed as a deduction under section 35AD of the Act, and clause(c) is a residuary clause in respect of assets which do not fall within (a) or clause (b) of this Explanation. Thus, scheme of this section would suggest that if sub-section

M/S. SHILP GRAVURES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation. However, the plant & machinery in previous assessment year was put to use for less than 180 days therefore the assessee claimed only 50% of such additional claim in the immediate previous year and remaining 50% claimed in the year under consideration. The claim made in previous assessment year for 50% amount has been allowed therefore remaining 50% should also

SHRI HARAPALSINH B CHUDASAMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16

depreciation on Motor Car and Vehicle on interest expenses. After going through the details filed related to the cash deposit aggregating to Rs.16,80,000/-, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Act dated 03.11.2017 to the Bank and the Bank responded the same. After considering assessee’s reply, the Assessing Officer observed that cash flow

INOX RENEWABLES LIMITED,VADODARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE1(1)(2), , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1731/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Inox Renewables Ltd. Vs. Acit, Cir.1(1)(2) Vadodara. Abs Towers 2Nd Floor Old Padra Road Vadodara 390 007 Pan : Aacci 4628 K

50C where a deeming provision has been provided. It is worth to note of Hon’ble High Court finding in this decision on this aspect as under: “1. Taking the question of ascertaining the fair market value on the date of sale, we notice that section 48, which is also contained in chapter IV of the Act pertains to method

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BAJAJ HERBALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is, thus, allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

depreciation of Rs. 2,11,723/- by deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO. So far as the expenses of the Rs. 39,663/- claimed on the running of the vehicle is concerned, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied so as to the claim made by the assessee by demonstrating that the whole expenses

ADANI AGRO PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee appeal is thus allowed

Bench: Shri O. P. Meena& Ms. Madhumita Roy

50C of the Act concerning immovable properties under the head capital gain. Thus in the absence of any specific provision to determine the sale price of the shares of the listed company, we are inclined to hold that the price declared by the assessee is correct and within the provisions of law. 10.7 We also find that a new section

AURA SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

50C of the Act concerning immovable properties under the head capital gain. Thus in the absence of any specific provision to determine the sale price of the shares of the listed company, we are inclined to hold that the price declared by the assessee is correct and within the provisions of law. 10.7 We also find that a new section