THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. KANSARA POPATLAL TRIBHOVANDAS METAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the Cross

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1. The C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the enhancement of book profit by the amount of Rs.1,82,82,237/- being the alleged excessive claim of depreciation without appreciating the facts of the case properly. 2. The C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in law in placing reliance on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case

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

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

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

115J, assessee claimed depreciation at rates provided under Income-tax Rules, action of Assessing Officer in redrawing profit and loss account and adopting rates prescribed under Companies Act, was totally unauthorized. 6.1 In view of the various decisions cited above, we are of the considered view that in the instant facts, PCIT erred in facts and law in holding that

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

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

1 Zao Torrent Pharma 20,51,66,850/- 08-08-2012 28-03-2013 2 Zao Torrent Pharma 15,19,72,500/- 16-11-2011 18-05-2012 55.1 The TPO found that as per the provision of FEMA 1999 and RBI master circular No. 15/2014-15 dated 01-07-2014, the process of allotment of shares/equity instrument shall be completed

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

1 below section 115JB. In view of this addition of Rs.75,38,35,000/- being provision made for arrears payable to the employees pending the decision of 6th Pay Commission to book profit computed under section 115JB is confirmed. 24. The AR of the assessee submitted that this ground of appeal of the assessee is consequential to ground no.2 raised

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

1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act. 11.2 In the context of what is stated above, reference may be had to the definitions of the terms 'books of account' and 'financial statement' as contained in sections section 2(13) and 2(40) of the Companies Act, 2013 respectively, which are reproduced herein below for the sake of convenience

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

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

1. The provisions of this part shall apply to the income and expenditure account referred to in sub-s. (2) of s. 210 of the Act, in like manner as they apply to a P&L a/c, but subject to the modification of references as specified in that sub-section. 2. The P&L a/c— (a) shall be so made

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

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

1. The provisions of this part shall apply to the income and expenditure account referred to in sub-s. (2) of s. 210 of the Act, in like manner as they apply to a P&L a/c, but subject to the modification of references as specified in that sub-section. 2. The P&L a/c— (a) shall be so made

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

1) Captive Usage at 59,20,03,761 5.8482 34621.30 20068.93 Dahej Plant (2) Captive Usage at 64,68,750 8.4663 547.66 219.29 Vadodara Plant (Wheeled from Dahej CPP) (3) Sale of GUVNL 44,52,013 4.7355 210.82 150.92 (4) Other – from sale of - - 2445.49 2445.49 Utilities Total 60,29,24,524 - 37825.27 22884.63 On taking the rate at Rs.3.39

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

1) Captive Usage at 59,20,03,761 5.8482 34621.30 20068.93 Dahej Plant (2) Captive Usage at 64,68,750 8.4663 547.66 219.29 Vadodara Plant (Wheeled from Dahej CPP) (3) Sale of GUVNL 44,52,013 4.7355 210.82 150.92 (4) Other – from sale of - - 2445.49 2445.49 Utilities Total 60,29,24,524 - 37825.27 22884.63 On taking the rate at Rs.3.39