GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 115J. The Assessing Officer rejected claim of assessee on ground that depreciation for purposes of section 115J was permissible

KANSARA POPATLAL TRIBHUVAN METAL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground number 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

section 115J. The Assessing Officer rejected claim of assessee on ground that depreciation for purposes of section 115J was permissible

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,, BARODA

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

depreciation can be granted on this Building and direct the AO to allow the same. Accordingly the CO filed on this ground is allowed. 25. Issue No.5 relates to disallowance of contribution made to various organizations: The assessee claimed payment of Rs.2,00,000/= to SVADES, Rs.95,65,559/= to DEEP and Rs.15,36,500/= to various NGOs the same

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,, BARODA

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

depreciation can be granted on this Building and direct the AO to allow the same. Accordingly the CO filed on this ground is allowed. 25. Issue No.5 relates to disallowance of contribution made to various organizations: The assessee claimed payment of Rs.2,00,000/= to SVADES, Rs.95,65,559/= to DEEP and Rs.15,36,500/= to various NGOs the same

GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

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

depreciation can be granted on this Building and direct the AO to allow the same. Accordingly the CO filed on this ground is allowed. 25. Issue No.5 relates to disallowance of contribution made to various organizations: The assessee claimed payment of Rs.2,00,000/= to SVADES, Rs.95,65,559/= to DEEP and Rs.15,36,500/= to various NGOs the same

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation of Rs.132,47,53,370/- u/s.32 of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in holding that the goodwill has to be taken at NIL cost in the hands of the appellant. 7. Both the lower authorities have

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation of Rs.132,47,53,370/- u/s.32 of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in holding that the goodwill has to be taken at NIL cost in the hands of the appellant. 7. Both the lower authorities have

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation of Rs.132,47,53,370/- u/s.32 of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in holding that the goodwill has to be taken at NIL cost in the hands of the appellant. 7. Both the lower authorities have

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation of Rs.132,47,53,370/- u/s.32 of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in holding that the goodwill has to be taken at NIL cost in the hands of the appellant. 7. Both the lower authorities have

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. M/S. GUJARAT ALKALIES & CHEMICALS LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

depreciation amounting to Rs. 25,93,976.00. This fact can be verified from the normal computation of income placed on page 9 of the paper book. Thus, as a result of suo-moto disallowance by the assessee, we note that there cannot be for the disallowance on account of prior period expenses under normal computation of income for the entire

GUJARAT ALKALIES AND CHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

depreciation amounting to Rs. 25,93,976.00. This fact can be verified from the normal computation of income placed on page 9 of the paper book. Thus, as a result of suo-moto disallowance by the assessee, we note that there cannot be for the disallowance on account of prior period expenses under normal computation of income for the entire

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

depreciation on assets being pipeline systems which stands dealt with by us above as ISSUE No.1 at para 6-23 of our order above. Applying our findings at para 11-23 of the order therefore this issue stands restored to the AO to be decided afresh in accordance with our directions contained therein. Ground of appeal No.1-1.8 is therefore allowed

SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

depreciation on assets being pipeline systems which stands dealt with by us above as ISSUE No.1 at para 6-23 of our order above. Applying our findings at para 11-23 of the order therefore this issue stands restored to the AO to be decided afresh in accordance with our directions contained therein. Ground of appeal No.1-1.8 is therefore allowed

RAJENDRA SHIP BREAKERS PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2177/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Rajendra Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., D-79, Kalvibid, Vs. Circle-1, Nr. Ram Mantra Mandir, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364002. Pan: Aabcr0105P

115J, whereas the issue under consideration is in connection with the interpretation of section 115JB of the Act; and (ii) this judgment also does not have any binding force because of a contrary view having already been expressed none other than by Hon'ble Territorial Gujarat High Court at a later point of time in the case of Surat Textile

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

115J." The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue." 21. Apart from the above, we have a binding precedent before us - One from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court and other from the Hon’ble Bombay High court. The question considered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Alembic Ltd. (supra) is as under

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

115J." The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue." 21. Apart from the above, we have a binding precedent before us - One from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court and other from the Hon’ble Bombay High court. The question considered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Alembic Ltd. (supra) is as under

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPON.LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

depreciation as per the rates notified by CERC, a regulatory commission by virtue of section 76 of Electricity Act, 2003, which are different from the rates prescribed under the Companies Act, 1956. During the year such rates were reduced, which could not however be implemented by the assessee during the year due to the fact that the notification was received

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 80-IE of the Act in Sikkim Unit on other incomes. 60. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has claimed deduction of profit derived from Sikkim Unit under section 80-IE of the Act. As per the AO, there were certain incomes considered by the assessee eligible for deduction under section