THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

24) In the result, we hold that the ITAT was justified in holding that while computing the capital gains arising on transfer of a : capita! asset acquired by the assessee under a gift, the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset and not the year

M/S. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh&Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2589/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/S. Gujarat Cricket Dcit, बनाम/ Exemptions, Circle-1, Association Vs. Ahmedabad Iind Floor, Akshar Arcade, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Nr. Vijay Char Rasta, Ahmedabad- 380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaa Ag1 205 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

disallowed. In respect of the above our submissions are as follows: 1. Whether the Assessee is engaged in the field of ‘education’? 1.1 The assessee is engaged in(i) providing infrastructure for the game of cricket; (ii) education for cricketers for learning intricacies of game of cricket by playing matches and running a coaching academy for teaching the finer aspects

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. The corpus donation of Rs.16,03,22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. The corpus donation of Rs.16,03,22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. The corpus donation of Rs.16,03,22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. The corpus donation of Rs.16,03,22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

24. We observe that for Assessment Year 2010-11 assessee has not offered any amount suo moto as disallowance for administrative expenses u/s 14A of the Act. However for Assessment Years 2011- 12 and 2012-13 assessee has suo moto disallowed for Rs.11,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/- respectively towards administrative expenses disallowance under Rule 8D(2

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHANDWALA INTEGRATED FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

24. We observe that for Assessment Year 2010-11 assessee has not offered any amount suo moto as disallowance for administrative expenses u/s 14A of the Act. However for Assessment Years 2011- 12 and 2012-13 assessee has suo moto disallowed for Rs.11,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/- respectively towards administrative expenses disallowance under Rule 8D(2

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

24. We observe that for Assessment Year 2010-11 assessee has not offered any amount suo moto as disallowance for administrative expenses u/s 14A of the Act. However for Assessment Years 2011- 12 and 2012-13 assessee has suo moto disallowed for Rs.11,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/- respectively towards administrative expenses disallowance under Rule 8D(2

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

24. We observe that for Assessment Year 2010-11 assessee has not offered any amount suo moto as disallowance for administrative expenses u/s 14A of the Act. However for Assessment Years 2011- 12 and 2012-13 assessee has suo moto disallowed for Rs.11,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/- respectively towards administrative expenses disallowance under Rule 8D(2

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

24. We observe that for Assessment Year 2010-11 assessee has not offered any amount suo moto as disallowance for administrative expenses u/s 14A of the Act. However for Assessment Years 2011- 12 and 2012-13 assessee has suo moto disallowed for Rs.11,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/- respectively towards administrative expenses disallowance under Rule 8D(2

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

24. We observe that for Assessment Year 2010-11 assessee has not offered any amount suo moto as disallowance for administrative expenses u/s 14A of the Act. However for Assessment Years 2011- 12 and 2012-13 assessee has suo moto disallowed for Rs.11,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/- respectively towards administrative expenses disallowance under Rule 8D(2

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS SECURITIES LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

24. We observe that for Assessment Year 2010-11 assessee has not offered any amount suo moto as disallowance for administrative expenses u/s 14A of the Act. However for Assessment Years 2011- 12 and 2012-13 assessee has suo moto disallowed for Rs.11,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/- respectively towards administrative expenses disallowance under Rule 8D(2

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

24. We observe that for Assessment Year 2010-11 assessee has not offered any amount suo moto as disallowance for administrative expenses u/s 14A of the Act. However for Assessment Years 2011- 12 and 2012-13 assessee has suo moto disallowed for Rs.11,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/- respectively towards administrative expenses disallowance under Rule 8D(2

THE ARVIND LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 862/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-2008 Arvind Ltd.(Earlier Known As Arvind A.C.I.T., Mills Ltd.), Vs. Circle-1, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad. Naroda, Ahmedabad.

2) of Section 115JB. He ought to have appreciated, inter alia, that when the portion appearing in the parenthesis of the said clause (iia) enjoined exclusion of depreciation on account of revaluation of assets, it being axiomatic that revaluation of assets could be both upward and downward, the exclusion on account of revaluation of assets need not necessarily result only

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1462/Ahd/2016 2.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1463/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

24. Discussion and Direction of DRP; : 24.1 It is seen from draft order that issue is not discussed in the draft assessment order, since the claim was made by the assessee during the course of the proceedings itself, as per letter dated 28/01/2015. The DRP has noted that there is no variation of income on this issue in the draft

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1462/Ahd/2016 2.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1463/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

24. Discussion and Direction of DRP; : 24.1 It is seen from draft order that issue is not discussed in the draft assessment order, since the claim was made by the assessee during the course of the proceedings itself, as per letter dated 28/01/2015. The DRP has noted that there is no variation of income on this issue in the draft

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

24 Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. . vs. DCIT assessee, being a pharmaceutical company while the assessee was in the business of establishing transmission network. That the CUP method did not approve such functionally distinct comparable to be used for bench marking. Accordingly the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the bench marking of the A.O. and held that of the assessee

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

24 Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. . vs. DCIT assessee, being a pharmaceutical company while the assessee was in the business of establishing transmission network. That the CUP method did not approve such functionally distinct comparable to be used for bench marking. Accordingly the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the bench marking of the A.O. and held that of the assessee