THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

50D of the Act, which are neither applicable to the year\nunder consideration nor attracted where the consideration for transfer of the\nasset is 'determinable' or 'nil',\nITAs No.671 & 1634/Ahd/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) 3\n1.6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nAO has erred in applying the GAAR provisions prescribed under

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

50D of the Act, which are neither applicable to the year\nunder consideration nor attracted where the consideration for transfer of the\nasset is 'determinable' or 'nil';\nITAs No.671 & 1634/Ahd/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11)\n1.6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nAO has erred in applying the GAAR provisions prescribed under section

ACIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY FOOTWEAR PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

50D of the Act in the return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was selected for regular scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings specific query was raised by the Assessing Officer in relation to capital gains income offered to tax by the Assessee. After considering the ITA No.94/Mum/2024

ACIT 17(1) , MUMBAI vs. GUPTA C K , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit-17(1) Gupta C K O/O The Government Of India 21, K. T. Building, O/O The Dy. Cit Cirr 17(1), Devji Ratansey Marg, Masjid Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Room No. 117, Bunder, Mumbai-400 009 Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051

transferred to HUF after her lifetime which was in the balance sheet shown as ‘capital asset’. The said land was then converted to non agricultural land on signing the Joint Development Agreement (JDA for short) vide order dated 25.05.2011 and continued to be shown as ‘capital asset’ and not ‘stock in trade’. Further, the assessee contends that