← All Phrases

“Section 49(1)(iii)(e)”

Section References (mined)Section 49Section 49(1)(iii)(e)33 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 49(1)(iii)(e) is Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (122 Taxmann.com 40), cited in 41 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 49(1)(iii)(e)

Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
122 Taxmann.com 40 · 2020 · Reported
41
citing judgments

Where goodwill is recorded pursuant to a merger based on purchase consideration determined by a valuation report, and no goodwill is transferred from the predecessor's books, the fifth proviso to section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not applicable, and thus depreciation on such goodwill is not allowable.

PCIT v. CIMS Hospital Pvt.Ltd.
125 Taxmann.com 227 · 2021 · High Court
17
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer can apply Rule 8D for disallowance under Section 14A only if they are not satisfied with the correctness of the assessee's claim regarding expenditure in relation to exempt income, after considering the assessee's accounts. Invocation of Rule 8D is not automatic.

CIT v. Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF)
177 ITR 198 · 1989 · Supreme Court
14
citing judgments

An exchange is a mutual transfer of ownership of one thing for the ownership of another. This definition of exchange is consistent with the definition of 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which includes exchange or relinquishment of an asset.

2007) 5 SCC 447; Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co.: AIR 1962 SC 256; Bank of England v. Vagliano Bros 39 LR
1 SCC 633 · 2002 · Reported
12
citing judgments

The levy of interest under Section 234-A of the Income Tax Act is statutory, mandatory, and automatic, meaning it cannot be a question of law that can be raised in appeal. The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 260A is limited to questions of law, and thus, observations on the levy of interest are generally outside its scope.

Hindustan Lever v. State of Maharashtra
9 SCC 438 · 2004 · Reported
11
citing judgments

Amalgamation, involving a compromise or arrangement sanctioned by the court, is a foundational basis for passing an order of amalgamation, and the subsequent acquisition of assets by the other undertaking signifies the loss of identity and ownership of the earlier concern.

Judgments citing Section 49(1)(iii)(e)

ACIT Central Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Unicorn Packaging LLP, Ahmedabad

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

ITA 898/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55(2)(a)

assessment order." 2) "The Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the intricacies of 6th proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) which established that Depreciation cannot ... continue in the hands of the successor. The Assessing Officer also invoked the provisions of the fifth/sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1), Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) to hold that

ACIT Central Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Unicorn Packaging LLP, Ahmedabad

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

ITA 897/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55(2)(a)

assessment order." 2) "The Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the intricacies of 6th proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) which established that Depreciation cannot ... continue in the hands of the successor. The Assessing Officer also invoked the provisions of the fifth/sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1), Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) to hold that

ACIT CC-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Unicorn Packaging LLP, Ahmedabad

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

ITA 896/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55(2)(a)

assessment order." 2) "The Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the intricacies of 6th proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) which established that Depreciation cannot ... continue in the hands of the successor. The Assessing Officer also invoked the provisions of the fifth/sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1), Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) to hold that

ACIT Central Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Unicorn Packaging Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

ITA 895/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55(2)(a)

assessment order." 2) "The Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the intricacies of 6th proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) which established that Depreciation cannot ... continue in the hands of the successor. The Assessing Officer also invoked the provisions of the fifth/sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1), Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) to hold that

ACIT Central Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Unicorn Packaging LLP, Ahmedabad

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

ITA 894/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55(2)(a)

assessment order." 2) "The Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the intricacies of 6th proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) which established that Depreciation cannot ... continue in the hands of the successor. The Assessing Officer also invoked the provisions of the fifth/sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1), Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) to hold that

ACIT Central Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Unicorn Packaging LLP, Ahmedabad

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

ITA 893/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55(2)(a)

assessment order." 2) "The Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the intricacies of 6th proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) which established that Depreciation cannot ... continue in the hands of the successor. The Assessing Officer also invoked the provisions of the fifth/sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1), Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) to hold that

ACIT Central Circle 2(3), Ahmedabad vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1842/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

Section 250

Revised Ground No. 7: 65. The Department seeks to apply Explanation 7 to section 43(1), sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), and Explanation 2 to section 43(6), asserting that the cost or WDV in the hands of the amalgamating company should be taken

Aadarsh Surana, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 47Section 68

alleged abnormal valuation would result in loss of revenue. In this regard, the Ld.AR drew our attention to the provisions of section 49(1)(iii)(e) of the Act and contended that, for the purposes of business profits, the cost of asset of the time of subsequent sale ... higher value, no prejudice is caused to the interests of the Revenue. This is in view of the explicit provisions of section 49(1)(iii)(e) of the Act, which stipulate that the cost of the capital asset in the hands of the successor company shall be deemed

M/S Estin Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 32/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

A.C.I.T., Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Estin Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

Dosti Realty Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 6129/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 115JSection 14ASection 37(1)

that depreciation is available on goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1)and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not referred.. 8. Generally

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Mcfills Enterprises Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA No. 401/Ahd/2022 is partly allowed and ITA 402/Ahd/2022 is dismissed

ITA 402/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 401 & 402/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(18)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

1) of the I.T. Act and other provisions related to the amalgamation specially section 2(1B), sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e) explanation 2 to section 43(6) and section 55(2). 6. Whether the ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts holding ... further submitted that the applicability of 6th proviso to section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, Explanation 7 to section 43, section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation I.T.A Nos. 401 & 402/Ahd/2022 McFills Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Mcfills Enterprises Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA No. 401/Ahd/2022 is partly allowed and ITA 402/Ahd/2022 is dismissed

ITA 401/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 401 & 402/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(18)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

1) of the I.T. Act and other provisions related to the amalgamation specially section 2(1B), sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e) explanation 2 to section 43(6) and section 55(2). 6. Whether the ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts holding ... further submitted that the applicability of 6th proviso to section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, Explanation 7 to section 43, section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation I.T.A Nos. 401 & 402/Ahd/2022 McFills Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 281/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

1) of the I.T. Act and other provisions related to the amalgamation specially section 2(1B), sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), explanation 2 to section 43(6) and section 55(2). 8. Whether the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts ... Revised Ground No. 7: 65. The Department seeks to apply Explanation 7 to section 43(1), sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), and Explanation 2 to section 43(6), asserting that the cost or WDV in the hands of the amalgamating company should be taken

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

1) of the I.T. Act and other provisions related to the amalgamation specially section 2(1B), sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), explanation 2 to section 43(6) and section 55(2). 8. Whether the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts ... Revised Ground No. 7: 65. The Department seeks to apply Explanation 7 to section 43(1), sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), and Explanation 2 to section 43(6), asserting that the cost or WDV in the hands of the amalgamating company should be taken

Plr Textiles Ltd., Chennai vs. The ACIT, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 133/CHNY/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 133/Chny/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 Plr Textiles Ltd., The Acit, 8K, Century Plaza, V. Corporate Circle -5(2), 560-562, Mount Road, Chennai – 641 034. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacp-6536-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai, Vide Ita No.153/Cit(A)-3/2018-19For The Assessment Year 2005-06, Dated 13.03.2020. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Appeal Filed By The Assessee, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Reasons For Delay Has Been Filed. After Considering The Petition Filed By The Assessee, Reason For Delay In Filing The Appeal Was Due To Covid-19 Pandemic & Also Hearing Both The :-2-:

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

assets in the hands of the Subsidiary KOIL will be the cost of acquisition in the hands of the Holding Company by section 49(1)(iii)(e) of the Act. :-7-: ITA. No:133/Chny/2021  Subsequent to transfer of the undertaking, KICL transferred its shareholding in KOIL to the promoters ... High Court confirming the amalgamation on 29.04.1998 with effect from 01.07.1997 is at page 29 of the paper book.  Under section 49(1)(iii)(e) read with section 47(vi) of the Act, the cost of acquisition of assets on amalgamation in the hands of the assessee, is the cost

Dow Chemical International Private Limited, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3772/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. AR /
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Dow Chemicals International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta-14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1200/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. AR /
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 303/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

case laws relied upon by the assessee are distinguished on facts supra. • The intricacies of fifth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e). Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) have already been

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 302/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

case laws relied upon by the assessee are distinguished on facts supra. • The intricacies of fifth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e). Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) have already been