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

34 section 32(1)(ii) read with Explanation 3(b) and relying on the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. [(2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC)], held that such goodwill constitutes an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under the Act. We find the reasoning adopted by the Co-ordinate Bench in Suzlon Energy

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

10,417/- in relation to international transaction of payment of guarantee fees to AE 26. The brief facts in relation of this Ground of Appeal pertains to the determination of the arm's length price for guarantee fees at 'Nil' in connection with the international transactions of the assessee company. In the financial year 2010-11, the assessee secured

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

10,417/- in relation to international transaction of payment of guarantee fees to AE 26. The brief facts in relation of this Ground of Appeal pertains to the determination of the arm's length price for guarantee fees at 'Nil' in connection with the international transactions of the assessee company. In the financial year 2010-11, the assessee secured

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

34,2267-, aggregating to Rs. 176,62,04,718/-. As these grants were towards cost of capital assets, 15% of the same should have been reduced from the depreciation claimed on account of making adjustment in the 'actual cost' of assts as per Explanation 10 below section

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

34,2267-, aggregating to Rs. 176,62,04,718/-. As these grants were towards cost of capital assets, 15% of the same should have been reduced from the depreciation claimed on account of making adjustment in the 'actual cost' of assts as per Explanation 10 below section

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

34,2267-, aggregating to Rs. 176,62,04,718/-. As these grants were towards cost of capital assets, 15% of the same should have been reduced from the depreciation claimed on account of making adjustment in the 'actual cost' of assts as per Explanation 10 below section

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

34,2267-, aggregating to Rs. 176,62,04,718/-. As these grants were towards cost of capital assets, 15% of the same should have been reduced from the depreciation claimed on account of making adjustment in the 'actual cost' of assts as per Explanation 10 below section

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation in the earlier assessment year since the machinery was used for less than 180 days and I.T.A No. 2471 & 2853/Ahd/2017 & Ors. A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page No 34 Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. . vs. DCIT claiming the balance 10% in the year under consideration. Section

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation in the earlier assessment year since the machinery was used for less than 180 days and I.T.A No. 2471 & 2853/Ahd/2017 & Ors. A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page No 34 Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. . vs. DCIT claiming the balance 10% in the year under consideration. Section

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation in the earlier assessment year since the machinery was used for less than 180 days and I.T.A No. 2471 & 2853/Ahd/2017 & Ors. A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page No 34 Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. . vs. DCIT claiming the balance 10% in the year under consideration. Section

J vs. INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,VADODARAVS.THE PR. CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10. The learned PCIT erred in fact and in law in setting aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for verifying the claim of depreciation-on goodwill recognized on acquisition of business without appreciating the fact that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings has allowed depreciation after proper verification of the facts on record

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

10(2A) defines such income as the share of profit of a partner from the partnership firm, the language is clear and unambiguous and needs no other insertion or deletion. The remuneration to partner may have the color of appropriation of profit of a partnership firm as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

10(2A) defines such income as the share of profit of a partner from the partnership firm, the language is clear and unambiguous and needs no other insertion or deletion. The remuneration to partner may have the color of appropriation of profit of a partnership firm as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

10(2A) defines such income as the share of profit of a partner from the partnership firm, the language is clear and unambiguous and needs no other insertion or deletion. The remuneration to partner may have the color of appropriation of profit of a partnership firm as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

10(2A) defines such income as the share of profit of a partner from the partnership firm, the language is clear and unambiguous and needs no other insertion or deletion. The remuneration to partner may have the color of appropriation of profit of a partnership firm as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts

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

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

34,2267-, aggregating to Rs. 176,62,04,718/-. As these grants were towards cost of capital assets, 15% of the same should have been reduced from the depreciation claimed on account of making adjustment in the 'actual cost' of assts as per Explanation 10 below section

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

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

34,2267-, aggregating to Rs. 176,62,04,718/-. As these grants were towards cost of capital assets, 15% of the same should have been reduced from the depreciation claimed on account of making adjustment in the 'actual cost' of assts as per Explanation 10 below section

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

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

34,2267-, aggregating to Rs. 176,62,04,718/-. As these grants were towards cost of capital assets, 15% of the same should have been reduced from the depreciation claimed on account of making adjustment in the 'actual cost' of assts as per Explanation 10 below section