SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

183/-). The Assessing Officer denied the benefit of Section 54 as the assessee failed to deposit unutilized amount of capital gain

HARSHADKUMAR HARGOVANDAS PATEL,KALOL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Capital Gain by disallowing the assessee's claim of expenditure of the\nsame amount incurred towards improvement and transfer of the property. The\nCounsel submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the\nassessee had duly furnished all relevant details and supporting documents,\nincluding copies of bills and vouchers, evidencing the expenditure incurred.\nThese bills and related details were placed

SUZUKI MOTOR GUJARAT PVT LTD,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDANAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 38(2) of the I.T. Act (out of - - - column 15) - 17 5,29,41,01,183 11,07,99,883 Net aggregate depreciation (15- 16) Proportionate aggregate depreciation allowable in the event - 18 of succession, - - amalgamation, demerger etc. (out of column 17) Expenditure incurred in - 19 connection with transfer of asset/ - - assets Capital gains

MAXXIS RUBBER INDIA PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

section 38(2) of the I.T. Act (out of column 15) 17 Net aggregate depreciation (15- 5,29,41,01,183 - 11,07,99,883 16) 18 Proportionate aggregate - - depreciation allowable in the event of succession, amalgamation, demerger etc. (out of column 17) 19 Expenditure incurred in - connection with transfer of asset/ assets 20 Capital gains

M/S. BLUERAY TRADING PVT LTD.,MAHARASTRA vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital have been held to be genuine by Ld. CIT(A). In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nirma Chemicals Works Pvt. Ltd. 182 Taxman 183 (Gujarat), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that the assessee company claimed relief under Section 80-I of the Act. The Assessing Officer allowed claim of the assessee partially by reworking

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

gains. These assets were owned by the amalgamating company prior to amalgamation is proved by the definition of the word “undertaking” in the scheme of amalgamation which is duly approved by the Hon’ble High Court. After capitalization of goodwill as done in the books of the assessee at Rs. 10.13 crores and if depreciation is allowed on this account

M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

capital expenditure with a direction to withdraw depreciation already allowed. The ld.Sr.DR supported the order of the AO. On the contrary, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no illegality in the order of the ld.CIT(). He submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

capital expenditure with a direction to withdraw depreciation already allowed. The ld.Sr.DR supported the order of the AO. On the contrary, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no illegality in the order of the ld.CIT(). He submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Capital Infusion. 55. The TPO found that the assessee during the year has made payment of share application money to the following AEs: S. Name of AE Amount in Rs. Date of Date of share No. payment allotted 1 Zao Torrent Pharma 20,51,66,850/- 08-08-2012 28-03-2013 2 Zao Torrent Pharma

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Axis Bank Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Opp. Income-Tax, Samartheshwar Temple, Nr. Law Circle 1(1)(1), Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aaacu 2414 K अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023/03.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee-Appellant Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 28Th July, 2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. Disallowance In Respect Of Annual Technical Fees (Tax Effect - Rs. 16,84,276) 1.1 The Learned Drp Has Erred In Upholding Addition Made By Ao In Respect Of Treating Annual Technical Services (Ats) Fees Paid To Infosys Limited To The Extent Of Rs. 48.66 Lacs As Prior Period Expense. 1.2. It Is Submitted That The Expenditure Relates To Amount Payable To Infosys & No Part Of The Amount Was Claimed As Expenditure At Any Time In The 2 Axis Bank Limited Vs. Acit Ay : 2018-19

183/- under section 37(1) of the Act in respect of Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP), being the difference between the market price as on the date of exercise of option and the exercise price under the head “profits & gains from business and profession”. In short 18 Axis Bank Limited Vs. ACIT AY : 2018-19 the assessee had claimed

VIJAY RAJNIKANT PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 263 of the Act would be limited to the issues which has been considered in the limited scrutiny assessment only and the revisional powers cannot be allowed to travel beyond the issues considered in such limited scrutiny. In this regard, he has relied upon very many judgements as follows by filing a written notes of submissions:- “That reliance

DEVRAJ BUILDERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Gains of Business and Profession”. The PCIT further observed that the provision for defect liability expenses claimed by the assessee was not ascertained or crystalised during the year under consideration and merely represented a provision for future contingencies and therefore the assessee is not entitled to claim it as deduction. The assessee has simply made a provision for future contingent