TECHNODOT ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokari.T(Ss).A. Nos.147&148/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Sanjay Gupta Income Tax, B-202, Dhananjay Tower, Central Circle-2(2), Anand Nagar Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan No.Adypg0351K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. Nos.21 To 23/Ahd/2020 & 15/Ahd/2022 & Ita No. 93/Ahd/2020) (A.Ys.: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 & 2010-11 To 2011-12) M/S. Technodot Engineers Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Cambay Hotel & Resorts, Income Tax, Plot No. 22, 23, 24 Gidc, Central Circle-2(2), Sector-25, Gandhinagar-382010 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aabct5392A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

depreciation amounting to Rs.5,06,392/-.” 8. The assessee has raised the following Additional Grounds of Appeal: “5.0 The impugned assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.09.2013 is void-ab-initio and should be quashed since the statutory and mandatory approval was granted u/s 153D

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1285 & 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & Ita No.1396 & 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1327 & 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1414 & 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. Torrent House Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench

section (5) of Section 80-IA. In this case, the question that arose for consideration ITA.Nos.1285/Ahd/2017 & 7 others A.Y.2009-10 38 before this Court related to computation of the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80-E, as it then existed, after setting off the loss incurred by the assessee in the manufacture of alloy steels. Section

JAYBHOLE COLD STORAGE,ARAVALI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

depreciation allowable as per Act It be so held now and order passed under Section 263 setting aside the Order of AO be cancelled and order passed by ld AO be restored. 7. Without prejudice to the above, the order passed by ld Pr. CIT is invalid, illegal and bad in law being with no firm conclusion

SHREEJI COLD STORAGE,ARAVALI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

depreciation allowable as per Act It be so held now and order passed under Section 263 setting aside the Order of AO be cancelled and order passed by ld AO be restored. 7. Without prejudice to the above, the order passed by ld Pr. CIT is invalid, illegal and bad in law being with no firm conclusion

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

depreciation on electric installation of Rs. 8,15,987/-. " 5) "that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the disallowance of foreign commission expenses of Rs. 57,07,6751-. " 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT-A erred in deleting the addition

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

depreciation on electric installation of Rs. 8,15,987/-. " 5) "that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the disallowance of foreign commission expenses of Rs. 57,07,6751-. " 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT-A erred in deleting the addition

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

section 92CA(1) of the Act on account of determination of arm's length price of international transaction entered into by the assessee. 19. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the findings of the AO while relying upon his own decision for the AY 2003-04. 20. The assessee is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid findings

TTEC INDIA CUSTOMER SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Ttec India Customer Solutions Pr.Commissioner Of Private Limited, Ttec Ahmedabad Vs. Income Tax-3 Opp: L.J.College Vejalpur Off: Sg Road, Makarba Ahmedabad. Fatewadi Bo, Fatewadi Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaccm 1005A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Vishal Kabra, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

3. The learned PCIT has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that during the original assessment proceedings, the appellant had furnished all relevant documents including Form 67 and details of income earned and taxes paid outside India, and based on such evidence, appropriate relief under Section 90 of the Act had been granted

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed as not pressed

3) of section 35 w.e.f. 01.04.2016, providing for furnishing of reports in the manner to be prescribed. It is, thus, w.e.f. 01.04.2016 that the provision has been made for approval of quantum of expenditure, for the first time.” 25.3 Again, the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT [2020] 117 taxmann.com 229 (Mumbai - Trib

HYDERABAD YADGIRI TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

depreciable asset was adjusted from the cost of the assets only. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to Note-3 of Intangible Asset as appearing in Note to Financial Statement for the year ended 31.03.2018. The Ld. AR also relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India (P.) Limited

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

3 million for U.S. Market and USD 1.4 million for Europe Market. This is supported by the agreement for sale exhibited at pages 519 to 536 of the paper book. 77. By virtue of this agreement for sale, the Technology was purchased by SPG in the month of October, 2007 and immediately thereafter in the month of November

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

3 million for U.S. Market and USD 1.4 million for Europe Market. This is supported by the agreement for sale exhibited at pages 519 to 536 of the paper book. 77. By virtue of this agreement for sale, the Technology was purchased by SPG in the month of October, 2007 and immediately thereafter in the month of November

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

3 million for U.S. Market and USD 1.4 million for Europe Market. This is supported by the agreement for sale exhibited at pages 519 to 536 of the paper book. 77. By virtue of this agreement for sale, the Technology was purchased by SPG in the month of October, 2007 and immediately thereafter in the month of November

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

3 million for U.S. Market and USD 1.4 million for Europe Market. This is supported by the agreement for sale exhibited at pages 519 to 536 of the paper book. 77. By virtue of this agreement for sale, the Technology was purchased by SPG in the month of October, 2007 and immediately thereafter in the month of November

M/S. FLOURISH PUREFOODS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. No.518/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Flourish Purefoods Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 11-12, Ecs House, Garden View, Tax, Nr. Global Hospital, Bodakdev, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad-380054 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aadcv2683B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

depreciation. Since common facts and issues for consideration are involved for both the years under consideration, both the appeals are being taken up together. 3. In the appeal relating to quantum additions in ITA No. 518/Ahd/2019, there are primarily two additions, which are the subject matter of appeal. The first addition relates to addition

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

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

depreciation claimed on two wheeler vehicles and Motor Car. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.10,38,591/- made by the Assessing Officer @ 25% of labour charges claimed by the Appellant. 5. In this case, a survey operation u/s. 133 A of the Act was carried out by the Investigation wing

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

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

depreciation claimed on two wheeler vehicles and Motor Car. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.10,38,591/- made by the Assessing Officer @ 25% of labour charges claimed by the Appellant. 5. In this case, a survey operation u/s. 133 A of the Act was carried out by the Investigation wing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

section 131 of the Act that the contractor has raised the bills at the higher value and the payment was accordingly made to the contractor at the higher value which was received back in cash by the assessee. Based on the statement, the AO held that the assessee is not eligible for depreciation on the higher value of the construction