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

10,19,24,003 Expenses (Inter-unit allocation) 4 Disallowance under Section 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D 8,70,747 5 Disallowance of Weighted Deduction under 65,09,81,251 Section 35(2AB) 6 Capitalization of Interest to Capital Work-in- 11,29,21,996 Progress (CWIP) under Section 36(1)(iii) 7 Disallowance of Sales Promotion / Business 23

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

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

23,10,31,519 of previous year, of those block of assets which were eligible for depreciation @ 50%, 60% or 80% as per the old Table 4 Additions for a period of 180 days 1,33,91,27,790 - 3,08,38,247 or more in the previous year 5 Consideration or other realization - - - during the previous year

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

23,10,31,519 depreciation @ 50%, 60% or 80% as per the old Table Additions for a period of 180 days 4 1,33,91,27,790 - 3,08,38,247 or more in the previous year Consideration or other realization 5 - - - during the previous year out of 3 or 4 Amount on which 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) of the Act, the capital grant should be reduced from the cost/WDV of the relevant asset, and thereafter the depreciation is to be calculated. Thus, the capital grant receipt in respect of asset, on which depreciation is allowable at the rate different from 15% should be worked out as per the applicable rate. The DR could

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) of the Act, the capital grant should be reduced from the cost/WDV of the relevant asset, and thereafter the depreciation is to be calculated. Thus, the capital grant receipt in respect of asset, on which depreciation is allowable at the rate different from 15% should be worked out as per the applicable rate. The DR could

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) of the Act, the capital grant should be reduced from the cost/WDV of the relevant asset, and thereafter the depreciation is to be calculated. Thus, the capital grant receipt in respect of asset, on which depreciation is allowable at the rate different from 15% should be worked out as per the applicable rate. The DR could

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 43(1) of the Act, the capital grant should be reduced from the cost/WDV of the relevant asset, and thereafter the depreciation is to be calculated. Thus, the capital grant receipt in respect of asset, on which depreciation is allowable at the rate different from 15% should be worked out as per the applicable rate. The DR could

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

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

23 Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. . vs. DCIT at all. Accordingly, the addition made by the TPO simply relying on the decision: of Cadila Healthcare is held not justified and is hereby directed to be deleted. .Relevant grounds of appeal are therefore, allowed. 34. Ld. D.R. relied on the order of the A.O. while the Ld. Counsel

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

23 Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. . vs. DCIT at all. Accordingly, the addition made by the TPO simply relying on the decision: of Cadila Healthcare is held not justified and is hereby directed to be deleted. .Relevant grounds of appeal are therefore, allowed. 34. Ld. D.R. relied on the order of the A.O. while the Ld. Counsel

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

23 Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. . vs. DCIT at all. Accordingly, the addition made by the TPO simply relying on the decision: of Cadila Healthcare is held not justified and is hereby directed to be deleted. .Relevant grounds of appeal are therefore, allowed. 34. Ld. D.R. relied on the order of the A.O. while the Ld. Counsel

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

10 chain of events—recognition of goodwill, claim of depreciation, and set-off—as forming an “erroneous and prejudicial” part of the assessment requiring revision under section 263. 16. We have carefully considered this background framing by the Ld. PCIT. However, for reasons discussed hereinafter in the issue-wise adjudication, we are of the view that the foundational presumption

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation of plant and machinery used by Sun Pharma Industries & M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim. III(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred in deleting, the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of selling and distribution expenses of Rs.182,57,00,000/- incurred by the working

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation, whichever is less as per books of account. It is submitted that as per explanation 1 (f) referred to above, only those expenditure which are specifically relatable to .income to which section 10(other than clause 38 of that section ITA No.1668/Ahd/2012(By Revenue) & CO No.178/Ahd/2012 (By Assessee) ACIT (OSD) vs. M/s.Torrent Power Ltd. Asst.Year – 2006-07 10

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

10 year relevant to the assessment year commencing before the 1st day of April, 1988; and (b) the amount of depreciation that would have been allowable to the assessee for such goodwill for any assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1988 as if the goodwill was the only asset in the relevant block of assets

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE 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

10,729/- to ESIC and Rs.2,51,103/- to Provident Fund as per provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of depreciation on goodwill for Rs.23