THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, VADODARA vs. M/S. MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

10 to Section 43(1) and, therefore, should not be deducted from the cost of fixed assets for the purpose of computing depreciation

M/S. MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(1),, BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

10 to Section 43(1) and, therefore, should not be deducted from the cost of fixed assets for the purpose of computing depreciation

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1),, VADODARA vs. MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER &\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

10 to Section 43(1) and,\ntherefore, should not be deducted from the cost of fixed assets for the purpose\nof computing depreciation

MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

10% depreciation on staff quarter which is grossly incorrect and results in underassessment of tax, this fact clearly proves that AO order has not verified this fact and assessment order passed by AO is prejudicial to interest of revenue as well as erroneous as envisaged in Provisions of Section

HAGGLUNDS DRIVES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ( NOW MERGED IN BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) LTD.),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

10% as opposed to 15% claim by the assessee, and excess depreciation so claimed by the assesseeamounting to Rs.11,71,648/- was proposed by the AO to be disallowed in his draft order passed under section

BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

10% as opposed to 15% claim by the assessee, and excess depreciation so claimed by the assesseeamounting to Rs.11,71,648/- was proposed by the AO to be disallowed in his draft order passed under section

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

Depreciation on Goodwill 2,27,92,50,000 3 Disallowance due to Allocation of Common 10,19,24,003 Expenses (Inter-unit allocation) 4 Disallowance under Section

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

Depreciation on Goodwill 2,27,92,50,000 3 Disallowance due to Allocation of Common 10,19,24,003 Expenses (Inter-unit allocation) 4 Disallowance under Section

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 32 of the Act. However, since those assets were put to use for less than 180 days the assessee had claimed 50% of the eligible additional depreciation, i.e 10

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPN. LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 43(1) and therefore incorrectly making addition of Rs. 32,10,76,556. The working of the same is attached herewith. 3. The learned AO may kingly be directed to consider the claim of additional depreciation

GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPN.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 43(1) and therefore incorrectly making addition of Rs. 32,10,76,556. The working of the same is attached herewith. 3. The learned AO may kingly be directed to consider the claim of additional depreciation

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPN. LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 43(1) and therefore incorrectly making addition of Rs. 32,10,76,556. The working of the same is attached herewith. 3. The learned AO may kingly be directed to consider the claim of additional depreciation

GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPN.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 43(1) and therefore incorrectly making addition of Rs. 32,10,76,556. The working of the same is attached herewith. 3. The learned AO may kingly be directed to consider the claim 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

10+11+12+13+14) Depreciation disallowed under 16 section 38(2) of the I.T. Act (out of - - - column 15) - 17 5,29,41,01,183 11,07,99,883 Net aggregate

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

10 % additional depreciation was carried forward in the year under appeal and claimed in the computation of income which was disallowed by A.O. on the ground that carried forward of such additional depreciation is inadmissible as per provisions of section

THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. KALPARATRU POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

10 % additional depreciation was carried forward in the year under appeal and claimed in the computation of income which was disallowed by A.O. on the ground that carried forward of such additional depreciation is inadmissible as per provisions of section

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

10 % additional depreciation was carried forward in the year under appeal and claimed in the computation of income which was disallowed by A.O. on the ground that carried forward of such additional depreciation is inadmissible as per provisions of section

THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SHREYANSHNATH DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2007-08 Ito, Ward-3(2)(5) Shree Shreyansnath Developers Ahmedabad. Vs Block No.832, Binor Bungalows Ghuma Gam Tal. Daskroi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaxfs 3932 L

section 80IB(10) of the Act. She pleaded therefore that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be set aside and that of the AO restored. 16. The ld.counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, heavily relied on the finding of theld.CIT(A) which are reproduced hereunder: “6. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions