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

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.

short term capital gain on trading in 21 scrips amounting to Rs.72,33,120/- and which included the scrip of M/s. Kushal Limited also, and 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

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

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

short term capital gain of Rs. 43,11,186/- was chargeable to tax in the asst, year under consideration. On verification of the case records, it is seen that the assessee has offered an income of Rs. 248/- under the head income from capital gain (the amount is not earned by way sale of land). Therefore, I have a reason

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

KAMLESHBHAI MANUBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

short term capital gain, the AO had rightly invoked the provision of section 50C of the Act. As regards working out the sale consideration by adopting the jantri value as on date of agreement, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the matter may be set aside to the AO for this purpose with suitable direction. Kamleshbhai Manubhai Patel Vs. DCIT

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. NEPTUNE PLASTIC CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

depreciation. The Ld. Sr. Counsel explained that the gain arising on the sale of property was short term capital gain

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

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

short referred to as CIT(A)), dated 08-05-2019, u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2015-16. 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue reads as under: (1) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in reversing the action

M/S. GUJARAT SMELTING AND PEFINING CO. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2014-15 Gujarat Smelting & Refining Co. Ltd. Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) C/O. Vinit Moondra Ca Vs Ahmedabad. 201, Sarap Opp: Navjivan Press, Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 014. Pan : Aaacg 7566 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent)

depreciation and other expenses. The net result of the business activity was a loss of Rs.72,63,457.00as shown in the computation of income. Such loss was indeed set off against the short-term capital gain

M/S. SAKARLAL BALABHAI & COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sakarlal Balabhai & Co. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 1001/6, 10Th Floor, Ankush Apartment, Vs Ward 4(1)(1), 10Th Khetwadi Lane, Grant Road, Ahmedabad Mumbai-400004 Pan : Aadcs 0862 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bimlendu Bhusan, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A) In Short]” Dated 20.09.2019 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under:- “1. Learned Cit(A) Has Neither Discussed Anything Related To The Disallowance Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Nor Considered Any Grounds Related To That Raised By The Us For Which Actually Appeal Has Been Filed By The Appellant. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Claimed That The Appellant Is Involved In Only Investment Activity & Does Not Have Any Business Activity & We Do Not Agree With It.”

Short Term Capital Gain only specified expenses u/s.48 of the Act are allowable which has been claimed and allowed as evident from the working of such STCG filed before the AO and reproduced in earlier part of this order. Appellant has claimed a sum of Rs.42.04 lacs as cost of acquisition, commission on sales at Rs.94.20 lacs, registration charges

RONAK CERAMIC IND LTD,MEHSANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Ms. Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member)

short-term capital gain and added to the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the preferred an appeal to the ld. CIT(A). The assessee the ld. CIT(A) contended that it has shown the impugned assets being land and building as part of the block of asset and claimed the depreciation

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

short “NFAC”), Delhi vide orders dated 25.02.2025 passed for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21 to 2022-23. Since common facts and issues for consideration are ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 2– involved for both the years under consideration, appeals

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

short “NFAC”), Delhi vide orders dated 25.02.2025 passed for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21 to 2022-23. Since common facts and issues for consideration are ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 2– involved for both the years under consideration, appeals

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

short “NFAC”), Delhi vide orders dated 25.02.2025 passed for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21 to 2022-23. Since common facts and issues for consideration are ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 2– involved for both the years under consideration, appeals

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

short “NFAC”), Delhi vide orders dated 25.02.2025 passed for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21 to 2022-23. Since common facts and issues for consideration are ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 2– involved for both the years under consideration, appeals

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

short “NFAC”), Delhi vide orders dated 25.02.2025 passed for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21 to 2022-23. Since common facts and issues for consideration are ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 2– involved for both the years under consideration, appeals

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

short “NFAC”), Delhi vide orders dated 25.02.2025 passed for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21 to 2022-23. Since common facts and issues for consideration are ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 2– involved for both the years under consideration, appeals

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.

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 the head

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

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 ground is partly allowed.” 4. Before us, the counsel for the assessee reiterated that the land sold in village Bhaniyara is situated beyond