ASIAN OILFIELD SERVICES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble&

block of assets. It does not prescribe differential rates of depreciation with reference to the ownership of the asset. It would be pertinent to note here that the special rate of depreciation for the main item "11/- Machinery and Plant" have been prescribed with reference to the nature of the particular asset and the character of its user including

GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri S. S. Godara.

block entitled for 10% rate of depreciation than plant and machinery involving 25% depreciation in proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 6. Last assessment

THE DCIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. V. F. ARVIND BRANDS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and the CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1904/Ahd/2013 & Cross Objection No. 204/Ahd/2013 (In Ita No.1904/Ahd/2013) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 D.C.I.T.(Osd), M/S. V. F. Arvind Brands Pvt. Circle-8, Vs. Ltd. Ahmedabad. Arvind Mills Premises, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad-380025. Pan: Aaccv 2727 L (Applicant) (Responent) / Cross Objector

block of assets under the head "intangible assets". The Assessing Officer allowed the claim for that assessment year by an order under Section 143(3) dated 28.03.2006. The Tribunal then, proceeds to hold that when the Assessing Officer had to allow depreciation

AGRAWAL ROADLINES PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

depreciation @ 50% applicable to the particular block of assets is justified. Accordingly, we direct the assessing officer to provide the depreciation

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. MUNDRA INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL PVT. LTD.,, KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

assessment year 2004-05. Since then, it has been entered into block of plant and machinery as intangible asset and it has rightly claimed the depreciation

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. MUNDRA INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL PVT. LTD.,, KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

assessment year 2004-05. Since then, it has been entered into block of plant and machinery as intangible asset and it has rightly claimed the depreciation

GFL LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

depreciation in subsequent years. (v) The amendment referred to in the notice makes windmills ineligible for entering this block of Renewable Energy Devices. We are in compliance with this amendment in as much as we have not acquired/or installed any windmill to this block after this amendment. In view of the above, there is no error in the Assessment

ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

depreciation under the block of plant and machinery. The submission made by the assessee was not found favour with the Assessing

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

depreciation under the block of plant and machinery. The submission made by the assessee was not found favour with the Assessing

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

depreciation under the block of plant and machinery. The submission made by the assessee was not found favour with the Assessing

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET (DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

depreciation under the block of plant and machinery. The submission made by the assessee was not found favour with the Assessing

M/S. SABARMATI GAS LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Sabarmati Gas Ltd. The Ld.Pr.Cit Plot No.907, Sector 21 Vs Ahmedabad-3. Gandhinagar 382 021 Pan : Aakcs 0110 N

block as reduced— (a) by the amount of depreciation actually allowed to him under this Act or under the corresponding provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922) in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment

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

depreciation on goodwill of Rs.2,53,45,655/- without appreciating the fact that there was no block of assets for the intangibles in the books of account of the amalgamating company, therefore the same cannot be recorded in the books of accounts of the amalgamated company, in view of Explanation 7 to section

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

assessing officer in the light of material available on records. The appellant has reiterated the arguments taken before the A O it is an admitted fact of the case that the appellant has not undertaken any manufacturing activity from Unit-1 in respect of which depreciation was claimed. Section 32 of the Act prescribes allowance of depreciation provided the asset

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

assessing officer in the light of material available on records. The appellant has reiterated the arguments taken before the A O it is an admitted fact of the case that the appellant has not undertaken any manufacturing activity from Unit-1 in respect of which depreciation was claimed. Section 32 of the Act prescribes allowance of depreciation provided the asset

ATUL LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT (OSD), RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Took Us Through The Chronology Of Events Leading To The Rectification Order Passed U/S. 154 Of The Act ,Which Was Carried In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Same & Against Which The Assessee Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us. Ld. Counsel For The

block of assets, such percentage on the written down value thereof as may be prescribed1139]: . . . . [(2) Where, in the assessment of the assessee, full effect cannot be given to any allowance under sub-section (1) in any previous year, owing to there being no profits or gains chargeable for that previous year, or owing to the profits or gains chargeable

NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

depreciable assets has been amended to provide that where goodwill forms part of block of asset for assessment year 2020-21 and depreciation

THE DCIT, CIR-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

depreciable assets has been amended to provide that where goodwill forms part of block of asset for assessment year 2020-21 and depreciation