DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation. There could not be any fault to this finding, hence this ground of appeal is rejected. 39. Ground No.4: In this ground of appeal, grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.3,10,423/- out of misc. expenses claimed by the assessee and disallowed by the AO. ITA No.692 /Ahd/2011

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation. There could not be any fault to this finding, hence this ground of appeal is rejected. 39. Ground No.4: In this ground of appeal, grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.3,10,423/- out of misc. expenses claimed by the assessee and disallowed by the AO. ITA No.692 /Ahd/2011

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation. There could not be any fault to this finding, hence this ground of appeal is rejected. 39. Ground No.4: In this ground of appeal, grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.3,10,423/- out of misc. expenses claimed by the assessee and disallowed by the AO. ITA No.692 /Ahd/2011

LOXIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the captioned appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

depreciation. 20.2 With a view to rationalize the existing tax incentives in respect of such units, sub-section (6) in sections 10A and 10B

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

section 10B of the Act during the year. ITA NOS.438-439/Ahd/2018 & others For A.Ys 2008-09- 2009-10 & others 2.1 The assessee in its trading unit has shown gross receipt of ₹1,49,924.00 against an expenditure of ₹35,74,125.00 only which resulted a loss of ₹34,24,202.00 during the year. 2.2 The assessee during the assessment proceedings

ASCENT FINECHEM PVT. 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 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

section 10B of the Act during the year. ITA NOS.438-439/Ahd/2018 & others For A.Ys 2008-09- 2009-10 & others 2.1 The assessee in its trading unit has shown gross receipt of ₹1,49,924.00 against an expenditure of ₹35,74,125.00 only which resulted a loss of ₹34,24,202.00 during the year. 2.2 The assessee during the assessment proceedings

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

section 10B of the Act during the year. ITA NOS.438-439/Ahd/2018 & others For A.Ys 2008-09- 2009-10 & others 2.1 The assessee in its trading unit has shown gross receipt of ₹1,49,924.00 against an expenditure of ₹35,74,125.00 only which resulted a loss of ₹34,24,202.00 during the year. 2.2 The assessee during the assessment proceedings

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

10B or] section 11 or section 12 apply; or] [ (g) the amount of depreciation,] [if any amount referred to in clauses

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

10B or] section 11 or section 12 apply; or] [ (g) the amount of depreciation,] [if any amount referred to in clauses

ELITECORE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT.-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

depreciation of Mumbai unit, while computing the deduction under section 10A of the Act. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Black & Veatch Consulting (P.) Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 72/208 Taxman 144/20 taxmann.com

TYCO VALVES & CONTROLS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, BARODA CIR- 4,, BARODA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 10B of the Act. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 19.2. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee in ground no 3 is that the Ld. DRP erred in confirming the addition of Rs.79,684/- on account of full depreciation

M/S. SCHUTZ DISHMAN BIOTECH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1909/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1947/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) 1.The Dcit 1. Schutz Disman बनाम/ Circe-8, Ahmedabad Biotech Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabad 2. Schutz Dishman Biotech 2. The Dcit Ltd. Circle-8 Bhadraraj Chambers Ahmedabad Nr.Swastik Cross Road Navrangpura, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 0988C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri Parimal Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.Dr

depreciation to the succeeding assessment years as per the provisions of law. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 14. The next issues raised by the assessee in ground Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 are that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer by sustaining the addition of prior

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SCHUTZ DISHMAN BIOTECH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1909/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1947/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) 1.The Dcit 1. Schutz Disman बनाम/ Circe-8, Ahmedabad Biotech Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabad 2. Schutz Dishman Biotech 2. The Dcit Ltd. Circle-8 Bhadraraj Chambers Ahmedabad Nr.Swastik Cross Road Navrangpura, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 0988C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri Parimal Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.Dr

depreciation to the succeeding assessment years as per the provisions of law. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 14. The next issues raised by the assessee in ground Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 are that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer by sustaining the addition of prior

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

10B(3), then such ALP determined is bad in law I.T.A No. 2471 & 2853/Ahd/2017 & Ors. A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page No 8 Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. . vs. DCIT • Reliance placed on CLSA India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 388 wherein it is held that ALP would be on adhoc basis and void if appropriate adjustments not made

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

10B(3), then such ALP determined is bad in law I.T.A No. 2471 & 2853/Ahd/2017 & Ors. A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page No 8 Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. . vs. DCIT • Reliance placed on CLSA India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 388 wherein it is held that ALP would be on adhoc basis and void if appropriate adjustments not made

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

10B(3), then such ALP determined is bad in law I.T.A No. 2471 & 2853/Ahd/2017 & Ors. A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page No 8 Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. . vs. DCIT • Reliance placed on CLSA India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 388 wherein it is held that ALP would be on adhoc basis and void if appropriate adjustments not made

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AUSOM ENTERPRISE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 857/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

10B(1) of the Act. We have already noticed that sub-section (1) has been expressly made subject to the provisions of the Section. Therefore, the meaning to be ascribed to the words used in that sub-section should be controlled or tempered by the language used in sub-section (4). So constructed it appears to us that the profits

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AUSOM ENTERPRISE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 857/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

10B(1) of the Act. We have already noticed that sub-section (1) has been expressly made subject to the provisions of the Section. Therefore, the meaning to be ascribed to the words used in that sub-section should be controlled or tempered by the language used in sub-section (4). So constructed it appears to us that the profits