GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

addition could be made to assessee's income on ground that while calculating total income as per section 115JB, assessee had adopted rate of depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN VEJALPUR vs. SABARKANTHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED, MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

additional depreciation shall be allowed in the immediate subsequent previous year. Thus, it is clear from the above insertion of proviso that the Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN VEJALPUR, PRAHLAD NAGAR vs. SABARKANTHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PORODUCERS UNION LIMITED, MILK PRODUCERS UNION

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

additional depreciation shall be allowed in the immediate subsequent previous year. Thus, it is clear from the above insertion of proviso that the Income

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

additional depreciation for the preceding year from the opening WDV and then compute the normal depreciation for the relevant Maxxis Rubber India Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2018-19 year, as directed by the Ld. PCIT. The said computation of depreciation, as provided in the income

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

income nor it was reduced from the cost of assets, 15% of the same i.e. Rs.964.191 lakh needed to be disallowed as excess depreciation claimed in respect of the same. The total disallowance towards excess depreciation, therefore, worked out to Rs.9.289 crores plus Rs.9.641 crores i.e. Rs.18.93 crores. Thus, instead of net addition

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

income nor it was reduced from the cost of assets, 15% of the same i.e. Rs.964.191 lakh needed to be disallowed as excess depreciation claimed in respect of the same. The total disallowance towards excess depreciation, therefore, worked out to Rs.9.289 crores plus Rs.9.641 crores i.e. Rs.18.93 crores. Thus, instead of net addition

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

income nor it was reduced from the cost of assets, 15% of the same i.e. Rs.964.191 lakh needed to be disallowed as excess depreciation claimed in respect of the same. The total disallowance towards excess depreciation, therefore, worked out to Rs.9.289 crores plus Rs.9.641 crores i.e. Rs.18.93 crores. Thus, instead of net addition

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

income nor it was reduced from the cost of assets, 15% of the same i.e. Rs.964.191 lakh needed to be disallowed as excess depreciation claimed in respect of the same. The total disallowance towards excess depreciation, therefore, worked out to Rs.9.289 crores plus Rs.9.641 crores i.e. Rs.18.93 crores. Thus, instead of net addition

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN VEJALPUR vs. SABARKANTHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED, BORIA, HIMATNAGAR

Appeal is dismissed

Income Tax Act,\n1961 itself w.e.f 01 April 2016 allows claim of balance 10% additional\ndepreciation in subsequent years. Without prejudice to the above, even\nbefore the insertion of the above proviso, various judicial precedents have\nheld that assessee is entitled for remaining 10% of additional depreciation

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

additional depreciation for the preceding year from the opening WDV and then compute the normal depreciation for the relevant year, as directed by the Ld. PCIT. The said computation of depreciation, as provided in the income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT INSECTICIDES LIMITED, ANKLESHWAR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Asstt.Commissioner Of Gujarat Insecticides Limited Income Tax Vs Plot No.805/806, Gidc Estate Circle-2(1)(1) Ankleshwar Vadodara Bharuch – 393 002 Pan: Aaacg 8436 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) … "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Arti Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 19/10/2023, Arising Out Of An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. Facts Of The Case: The Acit Vs. Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. Asst. Year : 2015-16

additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act for the Assessment Years 2007-2008, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 on the opening

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

income was assessed at Rs.103,02,53,338/- after making following additions/disallowances: ITA Nos. 464 & 546/Ahd/2022 Assessee- NK Proteins Ltd Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3– Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Loss on A/c of trading in Cotton Wash Oil 1,00,00,000 Purchase of CWO & Muster Seed 0,51,28,071 Additional Depreciation

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

income was assessed at Rs.103,02,53,338/- after making following additions/disallowances: ITA Nos. 464 & 546/Ahd/2022 Assessee- NK Proteins Ltd Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3– Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Loss on A/c of trading in Cotton Wash Oil 1,00,00,000 Purchase of CWO & Muster Seed 0,51,28,071 Additional Depreciation

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming that the appellant, being engaged only in distribution of electricity, is not eligible for additional depreciation

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming that the appellant, being engaged only in distribution of electricity, is not eligible for additional depreciation

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming that the appellant, being engaged only in distribution of electricity, is not eligible for additional depreciation

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming that the appellant, being engaged only in distribution of electricity, is not eligible for additional depreciation

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming that the appellant, being engaged only in distribution of electricity, is not eligible for additional depreciation