TORRENT ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1562/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 ) बनाम/ Torrent Energy Ltd. The Ito Torrent House Ward-8(1) Vs. Nr.Dinesh Hall Ahmedabad Ashram Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacct 8570 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar & Shri Parikh Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/01/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 19/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–8, Ahmedabad [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cit(A)-Xiv/516/13-14 Dated 12.03.2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Here-In-After Referred To As "The Act") Dated 21/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Dismissing Ground No. 1 Of The Appellant'S Appeal Before Him Challenging The Very Validity Of The Assessment Order Torrent Energy Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst.Year - 2011-12 Impugned Before Him, On The Ground That It Was General In Nature & Did Not Require Adjudication By Him.

TDS, the learned AR requested the bench to send the matter to the file of AO for verification in accordance to the 2nd proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Torrent Energy Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2011-12 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee in the instant case

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

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

227/ relevant to the asst. years 2008-09 and 2007-08 respectively. 2.2. The Ld AO rejected the above claim made by the assessee, on the ground that the claim was neither made in the Original Return of Income nor in the Revised Return of Income filed by the assessee. However, on appeal against the above assessment order before

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

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

227/ relevant to the asst. years 2008-09 and 2007-08 respectively. 2.2. The Ld AO rejected the above claim made by the assessee, on the ground that the claim was neither made in the Original Return of Income nor in the Revised Return of Income filed by the assessee. However, on appeal against the above assessment order before

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal I.T

TDS on payment of transmission charges paid by Assessee In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and of Assessee is allowed.” These facts has not been controverted by the Revenue by bringing any contrary material on record, therefore,, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, we do not find any merit in the ground

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, appeal I.T

TDS on payment of transmission charges paid by Assessee In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and of Assessee is allowed.” These facts has not been controverted by the Revenue by bringing any contrary material on record, therefore,, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, we do not find any merit in the ground

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

227 CTR 206), the jurisdictional Gujarat High had applied the decisions of the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (124 ITR 1) and CIT v. Madras Auto Service P. Ltd. (233 ITR 468) wherein it had been held that unless the expenditure was in the capital field, it could not be regarded as expenditure for the acquisition

SHUKAN BUILDERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT(OSD), CIRCLE-9,, AHMEDABAD

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

section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). AY: 2010-11 ITA No. 1518/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11(Assessee’s Appeal):- The first issue raised by the assessee is that the Learned CIT(A) erred in 2. confirming the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.62,51,247/- as bogus purchases. 3. The facts

THE DCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-9,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHUKAN BUILDERS,, AHMEDABAD

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

section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). AY: 2010-11 ITA No. 1518/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11(Assessee’s Appeal):- The first issue raised by the assessee is that the Learned CIT(A) erred in 2. confirming the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.62,51,247/- as bogus purchases. 3. The facts

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

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

227,92,50,000/-, adding it back to the total income of the assessee. 33. During the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) examined the issue relating to claim of depreciation on goodwill created on account of amalgamation in great detail. The CIT(A) noted that the Assessing Officer ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 22 had disallowed the depreciation primarily

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

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

227,92,50,000/-, adding it back to the total income of the assessee. 33. During the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) examined the issue relating to claim of depreciation on goodwill created on account of amalgamation in great detail. The CIT(A) noted that the Assessing Officer ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 22 had disallowed the depreciation primarily

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company