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

price that such goods or services will ordinarily fetch in the open market. To our mind sum of Rs. 4.51 per unit of electricity only represented cost of electricity generation to the assessee and not the market value thereof. It is not in dispute that the GEB charged Rs. 5 per unit for supplying electricity to other industries including

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. BALAJI ELECTRICAL INSULATORS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground NO.2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

section 2(47) r.w.s 53A of the transfer of property Act, 1882 applied to stock in trade are not justified. The Appellant argued that as per terms and conditions of the development agreement the possession remains with the Appellant and merely development rights are transferred to the Appellant. Further, Appellant refers to the clause (f) of the development agreement

SHRI CHIRAG NAVNITBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.2166/Ahd/2018 &"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2015-2016

price of the property increased 20 times within the period of 3.5 years; initially the assessee paid Rs.2,45,000/- for entering into agreement with the said Shri Rameshbhai Ambalal Shah but ultimately received Rs. 50 lacs after 3.5 years upon cancellation of such banakhat (agreement) right. According to the assessee it was a deal of immovable property and therefore

M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

53A of the Transfer of Property Act would lead to a situation where the land would be for the purpose of Income Tax Act deemed to have been transferred to the assessee. In that view of the matter, for the purpose of income derived from such property, the assessee would be the owner of the land for the purpose

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS, BARODA

53A of the Transfer of Property Act would lead to a situation where the land would be for the purpose of Income Tax Act deemed to have been transferred to the assessee. In that view of the matter, for the purpose of income derived from such property, the assessee would be the owner of the land for the purpose

THE ADIT(INTL. TAXN), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI AKSHAY RAJNIKANT PATEL,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal as also the Cross-Objection are dismissed

Bench: Us Is A Non Resident. During The Course Of Scrutiny Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Has Offered To Tax Short Term Capital Gain Of Rs.94,325/-. When He Probed The Matter Further

price was taken at Rs.25 lakh on the basis of notarized sale agreement for the purpose of calculating STCG.” 3. Briefly stated, the relevant material facts are as follows. The assessee before us is a non resident. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has offered to tax short term capital gain

SHRI DEVENDRASINGH A. JADEJA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

price to carry out the sale deed of the remaining land. The sale deed of 492 sq. yards was eventually made on 20th July, 2011 at a revised purchase consideration of Rs.9,36,000/-. The assessee sold the aforesaid land of 700 sq. yards for a consideration of Rs.35 Lakhs in FY 2011-12 relevant

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