ASCENT FINECHEM PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent (S) Appellant Respondent 1-2 438-439/Ahd/2018 2008-09 Ascent Finechem Pvt. A.C.I.T, Circle- & Ltd., 1(1)(2), 2009-10 11, Ground Floor, Ahmedabad. Suryarath, B/H. Whilte House, Panchawati, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan No.Aabca6349Q

20% according to the provision of section 32 of the Act. 23.1 However the AO disregarded the contention of the assessee as the rate of depreciation applicable on electrical installation is 10

ASCENT FINECHEM PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent (S) Appellant Respondent 1-2 438-439/Ahd/2018 2008-09 Ascent Finechem Pvt. A.C.I.T, Circle- & Ltd., 1(1)(2), 2009-10 11, Ground Floor, Ahmedabad. Suryarath, B/H. Whilte House, Panchawati, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan No.Aabca6349Q

20% according to the provision of section 32 of the Act. 23.1 However the AO disregarded the contention of the assessee as the rate of depreciation applicable on electrical installation is 10

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

10% in the year under consideration. Section 32(l)(iia) does not say that the year in which the additional depreciation has to be allowed. It simply says that the assessee is eligible for additional depreciation equal to 20

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

10% in the year under consideration. Section 32(l)(iia) does not say that the year in which the additional depreciation has to be allowed. It simply says that the assessee is eligible for additional depreciation equal to 20

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

10% in the year under consideration. Section 32(l)(iia) does not say that the year in which the additional depreciation has to be allowed. It simply says that the assessee is eligible for additional depreciation equal to 20

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

20% of the cost of the asset in terms of 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 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1462/Ahd/2016 2.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1463/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

20% of the actual cost of such machinery. The dispute is the year in which the depreciation has to be allowed. The assessee Has already claimed 10% of the depreciation in the earlier assessment year since the machinery was used for less than 180 days and claiming the balance 10% in the year under consideration. Section

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1462/Ahd/2016 2.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1463/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

20% of the actual cost of such machinery. The dispute is the year in which the depreciation has to be allowed. The assessee Has already claimed 10% of the depreciation in the earlier assessment year since the machinery was used for less than 180 days and claiming the balance 10% in the year under consideration. 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

depreciation by classifying office equipment under the head "furniture and fittings instead of "plant and machinery be deleted 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld AO under the directions of Hon'ble DRP erred in disallowing devaluation of inventory amounting to Rs 3,10,39,552/-. The Appellant prays that the additions made

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

depreciation by classifying office equipment under the head "furniture and fittings instead of "plant and machinery be deleted 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld AO under the directions of Hon'ble DRP erred in disallowing devaluation of inventory amounting to Rs 3,10,39,552/-. The Appellant prays that the additions made

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

20 statutory provisions governing amalgamation, including sections 2(1B), 32(1), 43(1), and 49. We proceed to examine the facts and the correctness of the order passed by the CIT(A) in light of the submissions and applicable legal position. 29. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee-company had claimed depreciation

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

20 statutory provisions governing amalgamation, including sections 2(1B), 32(1), 43(1), and 49. We proceed to examine the facts and the correctness of the order passed by the CIT(A) in light of the submissions and applicable legal position. 29. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee-company had claimed depreciation

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

section 32 of the Act. 8.11 The purpose for the depreciation on the intangible assets has been explained in the memorandum of the finance Act to 1998, and there was no such limitation provided for the allowability of the depreciation on technical know-how. Therefore we are not inclined to uphold the finding of the AO that the 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% [50% of 20%] of the additional depreciation relating to assets acquired and put to use for less than 180 days in the preceding year, from the opening written down value (WDV) of the block for the year under consideration, and general depreciation @15% be computed on reduced WDV. 2.2. That the PCIT erred on facts

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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (VUDA),, VADODARA

In the result, out of the five appeals two preferred by assessee are allowed and rest three preferred by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

10(20) enumerates the “Local Authority” which does not cover the VUDA. Subsequently, the assessee claimed that its objects falls under the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act and has complied with all the eligibility criteria for grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act, which was allowed by CIT-I, Baroda on 29.11.2005 subject to fulfillment

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (VUDA),,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, out of the five appeals two preferred by assessee are allowed and rest three preferred by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

10(20) enumerates the “Local Authority” which does not cover the VUDA. Subsequently, the assessee claimed that its objects falls under the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act and has complied with all the eligibility criteria for grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act, which was allowed by CIT-I, Baroda on 29.11.2005 subject to fulfillment

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (VUDA),, VADODARA

In the result, out of the five appeals two preferred by assessee are allowed and rest three preferred by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

10(20) enumerates the “Local Authority” which does not cover the VUDA. Subsequently, the assessee claimed that its objects falls under the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act and has complied with all the eligibility criteria for grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act, which was allowed by CIT-I, Baroda on 29.11.2005 subject to fulfillment