AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1 NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 311/Ahd/2016 2010-11 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 2. 2176/Ahd/2016 2011-12 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 3. 2173/Ahd/2016 2011-12 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 4. 165/Ahd/2017 2012-13 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 5. 287/Ahd/2017 2012-13 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 6-7 520 & 2013-14 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., 521/Ahd/2018 & Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 8-9 604 & 605/ 2013-14 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Ahd/2018 & Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K

section 43D is a beneficial provision but the provision iS very clear when it states that " {a} in the case of a scheduled bank the income by way of interest in relation to such categories of bad and^dou^btful debts as may be prescribed having regard to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India in relation

LALJIBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI GAUDANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHEMDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2012-13

68,740/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the A.O, assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. Laljibhai Parshottambhai Gaudani vs. DCIT, A.Y 2012-13 3 5. Now the assessee is in second appeal before

THE ITO, WARD-9(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHRI HARI ASSOCIATES, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Royincome Tax Appeal No.1874/Ahd/2011 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) & Income Tax (Search &Seizer)Appeal Nos. 128, 129 &130/Ahd/2014 (Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08)

68,210 sq. mtr. ITA No.1874/Ahd/2011 & IT(SS)A No.128, 129, 130/Ahd/2014 M/s. Shri Hari Associates Asst. Years 2008-09, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 On the said land, a Single Housing Project along with a Commercial Complex has been planned and approved by the concerned Municipal Authorities. The entire project has been artificially divided into four parts

ITO, WARD 4(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SATISH LALJIBHAI BHARWAD,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1982/Ahd/2017 With C.O.No.2/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015

section is of much wider amplitude and is not pari material with the nature of the word “sale” as defined in the Transfer of Property Act and as such it (“received”) will include transaction within realm of sec. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the decision

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

section 50D would be applicable after the AO comes to a finding that consideration received is not ascertainable or cannot be determined. We have extracted the finding of the ld.DRP. Nowhere such aspect is discernible. The ld.AO as matter of fact accepted the sale consideration at Rs.1 crore. He only replaced with fair market value on the basis

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

section 50D would be applicable after the AO comes to a finding that consideration received is not ascertainable or cannot be determined. We have extracted the finding of the ld.DRP. Nowhere such aspect is discernible. The ld.AO as matter of fact accepted the sale consideration at Rs.1 crore. He only replaced with fair market value on the basis