SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

disallowed unsecured loan (Rs.3,29,49,233/-), at a total assessed income of Rs.10,76,71,643/-. 10. The assessee filed before Ld. CIT(Appeals) against the aforesaid assessment order. We are only concerned with addition related to unsecured loans for a sum of Rs. 3,29,13,945/- and hence we shall discuss that part of order

VISHAL BALVANTRAI AGARWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.226/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vishal Balvantrai Agarwal The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 249 New Cloth Market Ahmedabad-1 V/S. O/S. Raipur Gate Ahmedabad – 380 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adbpa 4462 G (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Divyakant Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

249 New Cloth Market Ahmedabad-1 v/s. O/S. Raipur Gate Ahmedabad – 380 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: ADBPA 4462 G (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Divyakant Parikh, AR Revenue by : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

sections 149, 372A, 249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

sections 149, 372A, 249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

sections 149, 372A, 249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

sections 149, 372A, 249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

sections 149, 372A, 249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should

THA ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

sections 149, 372A, 249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

sections 149, 372A, 249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should

DARPAN KANUBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 123/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Darpan Kanubhai Shah The Income-Tax Officer, C/O. Darpan Travels, Vs. Ward-3(1)(4), Near Ramji Mandir, Vadodara Madanzampa Road, Vadodara-390001 Pan : Agips 3405 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Samir Parikh, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 22.11.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “(1) The Learned Cit(Appeal) Is Not Correct In Holding That The Assessee Has Not Filed Return Of Income U/S 148. Consequently The Learned Cit (Appeal) Is Not Correct That The Appeal Is Not Liable To Be Admitted. (Ii) Alternatively Appeal Is Allowed By Set Aside The Order & Matter Referred Back To The Desk Of Hon. Cit For Reconsideration. Darpan Kanubhai Shah Vs. Ito Ay : 2018-19 2

disallow claim of section 54B of the Act as the assessee has purchased Agriculture Land within two years.” 3. The facts of the case are that assessment u/s 147 of the Act was framed in the case of the assessee, noting that the assessee had sold an immovable property (land) for Rs.57,55,000/- and no return of income

SHRI VIMAL RAMNIKLAL AMBANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D by observing as under: “From the copy of account of travel expense, it is seen that Rs.1,90,249

SHRI VIMAL RAMNIKLAL AMBANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D by observing as under: “From the copy of account of travel expense, it is seen that Rs.1,90,249

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of deduction under section 80-IE of the Act in Sikkim Unit on other incomes. 60. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has claimed deduction of profit derived from Sikkim Unit under section 80-IE of the Act. As per the AO, there were certain incomes considered by the assessee eligible for deduction under section

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance to the amount of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act by holding it to be infractuous. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have independently decided the said ground on merits. 4. Both the power authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submission, explanations and ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance to the amount of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act by holding it to be infractuous. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have independently decided the said ground on merits. 4. Both the power authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submission, explanations and ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance to the amount of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act by holding it to be infractuous. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have independently decided the said ground on merits. 4. Both the power authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submission, explanations and ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance to the amount of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act by holding it to be infractuous. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have independently decided the said ground on merits. 4. Both the power authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submission, explanations and ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance to the amount of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act by holding it to be infractuous. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have independently decided the said ground on merits. 4. Both the power authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submission, explanations and ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance to the amount of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act by holding it to be infractuous. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have independently decided the said ground on merits. 4. Both the power authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submission, explanations and ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015