BAKERI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Bakeri Projects Pvt. Lt. The Dcit, Cir.(1)(1) 1St Floor, Sanskrut Vs. Ahmedabad. Old High Court Road Off: Ashram Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aagcb 1864 L (Applicant) (Responent)

depreciation loss was available for carry forward or set off for A.Y. 2020–21 from those years. The PCIT further

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SARVOTTAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is allowed

carry forward to future years of unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to A.Y. 2000-01 & 2001-02 and its treatment as current depreciation. 4. Brief facts relevant to issue are that the assessee had returned loss

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1596/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: i) “Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in deleting the Addition on account

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPN. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1596/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: i) “Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in deleting the Addition on account

KHIMJI RAMDAS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2) PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.500/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Khimji Ramdas India Pvt. Ltd., The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, City Square Godrej Ahmedabad, Vs. Garden City, Jagatpur, Present Jurisdiction Ahmedabad-382470 The Dcit, Pan : Aadck 6056 C Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Aatish Shah, Ar & Shri Anil N. Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Hishikes Hemant Patki, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 12.05.2023 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under:- “1. The Ld. Ao Wd. 2(1)(2) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Impugned Order Which Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed & The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Have Similarly Cit(A) Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Impugned Order Vide His Order Passed Us.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Appeal Vide His Order Dtd.12-05-2023 Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052777862(1) Dtd. 12/05/2023. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Without Considering/Adjudicating

carry forward as determined by the Hon'ble CIT(A) of Rs.35,72,242, we most respectfully state that, the appellant Company had furnished it's Return of Income on 18.11.2014 and was assessed U/s,143(3) of the Act vide order Dtd.15.12.2016, after considering and after giving effect of brought forward unabsorbed loss and depreciation

OLYMPIC DECOR LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Olympic Décor Llp Pr.Commissioner Of 6, Patel Avenue, Nr.Gurudwara Vs Income Tax-3 Sg Highway, Bodakdev Ambawadi Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Adafs 2113 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ars : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation on such iv. goodwill and Acceptance of set-off of losses of Rs.11

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

depreciation, the resultant income shall comprise Of Capita! Gain, income from House property and income from other sources which are not "Profit derived from the business of power" and hence not to be considered for deduction Under Section 80 IA. The assessee is not eligible for carry forward any loss

TAHOORA PROTEINS,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 NOW WARD-1, GODHRA

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

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

depreciation amounting to Rs.87,60,982/-. 2.1. The Return of Income was selected for scrutiny assessment and show cause notice was issued by the A.O. proposing to make addition of Rs.1.25 crores as admitted unaccounted stock should be taxed u/s. 69 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and also why not to disallow set off carried forward loss

THE ACIT, CIRCLE2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. KALTHIA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2127/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 A.C.I.T., Kalthia Engineering & Construction Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Vs. 193, Kalthia House, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad.

carry forward loss pertaining to the eligible unit, if the losses of eligible unit had earlier been adjusted with the losses of other units prior to the initial assessment year. There is no need to notionally set-off the losses of that unit for allowing the deduction. The losses and depreciation

THE ARVIND LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 862/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-2008 Arvind Ltd.(Earlier Known As Arvind A.C.I.T., Mills Ltd.), Vs. Circle-1, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad. Naroda, Ahmedabad.

losses and unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward from the de-merged company to the resulting company. ii. Neither the companies

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

depreciation. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the legislative intent behind the provisions in right spirit. 4.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the ground relating to the claim of carry forward of unabsorbed business losses

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

depreciation. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the legislative intent behind the provisions in right spirit. 4.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the ground relating to the claim of carry forward of unabsorbed business losses

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

depreciation. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the legislative intent behind the provisions in right spirit. 4.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the ground relating to the claim of carry forward of unabsorbed business losses

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

depreciation. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the legislative intent behind the provisions in right spirit. 4.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the ground relating to the claim of carry forward of unabsorbed business losses

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

depreciation. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the legislative intent behind the provisions in right spirit. 4.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the ground relating to the claim of carry forward of unabsorbed business losses

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

depreciation. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the legislative intent behind the provisions in right spirit. 4.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the ground relating to the claim of carry forward of unabsorbed business losses

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

carried forward to be claimed in assessment year 2018-19 as per the third proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. A working of the total depreciation charged during the year under consideration is tabulated as under:- Block of assets Plant and Machinery S.No. 15 30 40 Rate (%) (i) (ii) (iii) 3a Written down value on the first

THE MADHAVPURA MERCANTILE CO. OP. BANK LIMITED (UNDER LIQUIDATION),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

depreciable assets which was adjusted with brought forward business loss. As per provision of section 72(1) of the Act, the brought forward business loss can be set-off only with the business profit. Therefore, the set-off of the current year STCG with brought forward business loss was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, which