SANJAY JAYANTILAL SHAH- HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 439/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2015-2016 Sanjay Jayantilal Shah-Huf, I.T.O, 72, Tapovan Society, Vs. Ward-5(2)(3), Nr.Manek Bag Hall, Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aafhs7792J

139 IT Act, hence, is allowed to claim the benefit of the amendment made by Finance Act, 2010 to the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. 9.6 In view of the above we hold that the amendment brought by the Finance Act 2018 by inserting the 2 proviso to section 43(5

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

139/- and additional depreciation of Rs. 3,69,848/ and added to the total income of the assessee. 36. Aggrieved assessee preferred an to appeal before the learned CIT-A who allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of this Tribunal in its own assessee

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

139/- and additional depreciation of Rs. 3,69,848/ and added to the total income of the assessee. 36. Aggrieved assessee preferred an to appeal before the learned CIT-A who allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of this Tribunal in its own assessee

TORRENT ENERGY LIMITED (NOW MERGED WITH TORRENT POWER LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Torrent Energy Limited The Acit, Cir.4(1)(1) (Now Merged With Torrent Power Ltd) Ahmedabad. Samanvay, 600, Tapovan Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Pan : Aacct 8570 B (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ar : Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

depreciation but alternatively contended that the lease premium should be allowed as revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer, in the original round of assessment, disallowed the claim on the ground that the same was a fresh claim made otherwise than by way of a revised return under section 139(5

MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Depreciation - Additional depreciation (Illustration) - Assessment years 2012- 13 and 2013-14-Assessee company was engaged in business of providing referral laboratory services and diagnostic services etc. Assessee had set up various collection centers at multiple locations - Assessee claimed additional depreciation on its assets used in such collection centres-Revenue was of view

ACIT ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD, VALLABH VIDYANAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us.

5 – 9. From the above table its apparent that full effect of depreciation was not given in AY 2020-21 and its eligible to carry forward unabsorbed loss. The observation of the AO that its business loss and not unabsorbed depreciation is factually incorrect. 10. Further, set-off and carry forward of depreciation is governed by section

BHARGAVKUMAR PARSOTTAMBHAI PATEL HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2023-24 Arun Gopilal Samnani The I.T.O., Ward-5(3)(1) 7, Bank Of Baroda Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. P.T. College Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aywps 2887 D Assessment Year :2023-24 Bhargavkumarparsottambh The I.T.O., Ward-1(2)(1) Ai Patel-Huf Vs Ahmedabad. B/301, 3Rd Floor Shree Saran-2 Opp: Anand Niketan School Thaltej, Ahmedabad 380089. Pan : Aalhb 2685 R

depreciation, if any, under any provision of section 32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed; and (iv) without any exemption or deduction for allowances or perquisite, by whatever name called, provided under any other law for the time being in force. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (5) Nothing contained

ARUN GOPILAL SAMNANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2023-24 Arun Gopilal Samnani The I.T.O., Ward-5(3)(1) 7, Bank Of Baroda Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. P.T. College Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aywps 2887 D Assessment Year :2023-24 Bhargavkumarparsottambh The I.T.O., Ward-1(2)(1) Ai Patel-Huf Vs Ahmedabad. B/301, 3Rd Floor Shree Saran-2 Opp: Anand Niketan School Thaltej, Ahmedabad 380089. Pan : Aalhb 2685 R

depreciation, if any, under any provision of section 32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed; and (iv) without any exemption or deduction for allowances or perquisite, by whatever name called, provided under any other law for the time being in force. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (5) Nothing contained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CLARIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 295/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 The D.C.I.T, M/S Claris Lifesciences Limited, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. Claris Corporate Hq, Ahmedabad. Near Parimal Rly. Crossing, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacc6366Q

5. Ground of appeal 3 in against the AO after holding the capital gains arising out of sale of depreciable asset of Solar Power Plant as short term in nature, denied the set off to A.Y. 2018-19 3 this income from the Long Term Capital Loss arising out of sale of shares in subsidiary company in view of section

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.572/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Gujarat State Electricity The Pr.Cit-1 Corporation Ltd. बनाम/ Vadodara – 390 015 Sardar Patel Vidhyut Bhavan V/S. Race Course Circle Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 6864 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Jimi Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

depreciation, a notice under section 143(2) of the Actwas issued on 21.09.2016 within the statutory time limit. The assessee thereafter filed a revised return under section 139(5

KREATE KONNECT E SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Kcreate Konnect E Solutions Dy. Cit, Cir.1(1)(1) Private Limited Vs. Vadodara. 291M 2Bd Floor, Green Villa-11 B/H. Abs Tower Old Padra Road Vadodara Pan : Aagck 1493 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Jigar Adhyaru, Ar Assessee By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 18.09.2024, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2020– 21, Whereby The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Intimation Issued Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 18.12.2021 Was Dismissed.

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia), deductions under sections 10AA, 35(1)(ii), etc., thereby complying with the conditions of sub-section (2) of section 115BAA. • In the tax audit report (Form No. 3CD), specifically under Clause 8(a), the auditor disclosed that the assessee has opted to be taxed under section 115BAA. This amounts to third-party statutory attestation

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)

139].) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See Ku. Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 585]. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into

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)

139].) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See Ku. Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 585]. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into

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)

139].) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See Ku. Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 585]. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into

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)

139].) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See Ku. Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 585]. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5 is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for Rs.18,27,854/- representing the prior period expenses. 133. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its ground of appeal for the AY 2009-10 is identical to the issues raised by the assessee vide groundno

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5 is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for Rs.18,27,854/- representing the prior period expenses. 133. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its ground of appeal for the AY 2009-10 is identical to the issues raised by the assessee vide groundno

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

5,25,41,076/-. 45. Ground of appeal no. 2 is dismissed. 46. Ground no. 3 reads as under: 3. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) was justified in allowing the Additional depreciation of Rs.26,41,911/-. I.T.A No. 2471 & 2853/Ahd/2017 & Ors. A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page No 31 Kalpataru Power Transmission