THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

142(1) along with detailed questionnaires were issued from time to time, to which the assessee filed replies and furnished necessary information. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made a reference under section 92CA(1) to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the arm’s length price in respect of international transactions and specified domestic

OLYMPIC DECOR LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Olympic Décor Llp Pr.Commissioner Of 6, Patel Avenue, Nr.Gurudwara Vs Income Tax-3 Sg Highway, Bodakdev Ambawadi Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Adafs 2113 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ars : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

sections 142(1) and 143(2), and after detailed verification of all material facts and supporting evidence. Therefore, it cannot be alleged that the assessment was completed without inquiry or that the AO accepted claims mechanically without application of mind. 8. In relation to Grounds relating to depreciation

ABDULVAHED A. SHEIKH, LEGAL HEIROF LATE SMT. SARIFABEN BIKHUBHAI SHEK,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Section 292B/BB, the Hon’ble High Court has held that the notice shall not be held invalid where the legal representatives, on receipt of such notice issued to a dead person, participate in the proceedings and thus waive their right to issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 16. Having said so, we now bring out the facts

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

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 74 of the Act. Aggrieved the appellant raised a separate ground on this issue which is discussed as under

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

depreciation and provision of doubtful advances not added back while computing the Book Profit under Section 115JB and thus set aside the original assessment order. (ii) Subsequently, the AO issued notice to the assessee under section 142

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

depreciation and provision of doubtful advances not added back while computing the Book Profit under Section 115JB and thus set aside the original assessment order. (ii) Subsequently, the AO issued notice to the assessee under section 142

BAKERI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Bakeri Projects Pvt. Lt. The Dcit, Cir.(1)(1) 1St Floor, Sanskrut Vs. Ahmedabad. Old High Court Road Off: Ashram Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aagcb 1864 L (Applicant) (Responent)

depreciation loss under normal provisions against gross total income. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment proceedings were conducted under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer issued multiple notices under section 142

M/S. SURZLON GLOBAL SERVICES LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 67-68/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 M/S. Suzlon Global Services Limited, Principal Commissioner 5 Suzlon, Shrimali Society, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Near Shree Krishna Centre, Ahmedabad. Nr. Judges Bunglow Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aaics1406R

depreciation for ₹ 179.85 crores with respect to the goodwill generated to it in the scheme of amalgamation as discussed above subject to the time limit as specified under section 263 of the Act. The time as specified under section 263(2) of the Act is for 2 years from the end of financial year in which intimation under section

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

142(1) of the Act on 18.08.2015. As per the submission made by the assessee, it was claimed that the investments held by the company have been held for business purpose and the same have been made out of the own funds of I.T.A No. 2471 & 2853/Ahd/2017 & Ors. A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page No 15 Kalpataru Power Transmission

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

142(1) of the Act on 18.08.2015. As per the submission made by the assessee, it was claimed that the investments held by the company have been held for business purpose and the same have been made out of the own funds of I.T.A No. 2471 & 2853/Ahd/2017 & Ors. A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page No 15 Kalpataru Power Transmission

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

142(1) of the Act on 18.08.2015. As per the submission made by the assessee, it was claimed that the investments held by the company have been held for business purpose and the same have been made out of the own funds of I.T.A No. 2471 & 2853/Ahd/2017 & Ors. A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page No 15 Kalpataru Power Transmission

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)

142(2A) was raised. However, despite these measures, the assessee’s continued to remain non-cooperative. Reports from the Special Auditors indicated that many necessary details, documents, and explanations were not provided. The special auditors repeatedly mentioned the non-cooperation and incomplete records from the IT(SS)A Nos.147 & 148/Ahd/2019 & 21 to 23/Ahd/2020 & 15/Ahd/2022 & 93/Ahd/2020 Sanjay Gupta vs. DCIT & others

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

section 36(2) are not fulfilled, the claim of the appellant is disallowed. The ground number 4 race dismissed.” 137. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT-A the assessee is in appeal before us. 138. The Ld. AR before us contended that the bad debts has actually been written off by the assessee in the books

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

section 36(2) are not fulfilled, the claim of the appellant is disallowed. The ground number 4 race dismissed.” 137. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT-A the assessee is in appeal before us. 138. The Ld. AR before us contended that the bad debts has actually been written off by the assessee in the books

SIRHIND STEELS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 713/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Sirhind Steel Ltd., P.C.I.T-4, 7Th Floor, Shalin Building, Vs. Ambawadi, Nr. Nehru Bridge Corner, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad.

section 142(1) of the Act as well as the submissions made by the assessee in response to such notice. 7.1 The learned AR further contended that both the plant & machineries and motor cars are carrying the same rate of depreciation

KESAR BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,BANASKANTHA vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the PCIT and restore the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The appeal of the assessee is thus allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-2028 Kesar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The Ld.Pr.Cit 1St Floor Shri Kesar Cold Vs. Ahmedabad-3 Storage Plot No.B-2 To 9, Rev Survey No.85/2 Paiki Near Hotel Jyoti Vil Banaskantha. Pan : Aabck 4923 E (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hem Chhajed, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025

Depreciation, Interest and Taxes) as compared to business turnover.” Pursuant thereto, notices under section 143(2) dated 28.06.2022 and 142

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1462/Ahd/2016 2.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1463/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

depreciation on TO plant). In this note, we have given the background of the carbon credits and how the carbon credits are received in the case of our Company. We had also explained the procedure of generation of carbon credits and steps taken and involved in receipt of such carbon credits. Thus, the carbon credits are issued

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1462/Ahd/2016 2.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1463/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

depreciation on TO plant). In this note, we have given the background of the carbon credits and how the carbon credits are received in the case of our Company. We had also explained the procedure of generation of carbon credits and steps taken and involved in receipt of such carbon credits. Thus, the carbon credits are issued

DIAMINES AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

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

depreciation also as all other conditions of section 32(1)(iia) are satisfied. Thus the basic show I.T.A No. 1472/Ahd/2015 & 219/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 4 Diamines & Chemicals Ltd. vs. DCIT cause notice issued by the Ld. CIT itself is misplaced and does not identify any such error in the Assessment order. 2.3. As far as capital work