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

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

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

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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, MEHSANA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

depreciation. The assessee paid total tax and interest of Rs. 1,27,86,930/- under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 showing book profit u/s 115JB at Rs. 6,93,55,609/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) dated 26.09.2011 was issued. Thereafter, notice u/s 142

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 4, BARODA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

depreciation. The assessee paid total tax and interest of Rs. 1,27,86,930/- under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 showing book profit u/s 115JB at Rs. 6,93,55,609/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) dated 26.09.2011 was issued. Thereafter, notice u/s 142

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

depreciation. The assessee paid total tax and interest of Rs. 1,27,86,930/- under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 showing book profit u/s 115JB at Rs. 6,93,55,609/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) dated 26.09.2011 was issued. Thereafter, notice u/s 142

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, BARODA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

depreciation. The assessee paid total tax and interest of Rs. 1,27,86,930/- under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 showing book profit u/s 115JB at Rs. 6,93,55,609/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) dated 26.09.2011 was issued. Thereafter, notice u/s 142

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, BARODA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

depreciation. The assessee paid total tax and interest of Rs. 1,27,86,930/- under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 showing book profit u/s 115JB at Rs. 6,93,55,609/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) dated 26.09.2011 was issued. Thereafter, notice u/s 142

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, MEHSANA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

depreciation. The assessee paid total tax and interest of Rs. 1,27,86,930/- under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 showing book profit u/s 115JB at Rs. 6,93,55,609/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) dated 26.09.2011 was issued. Thereafter, notice u/s 142

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, MEHSANA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

depreciation. The assessee paid total tax and interest of Rs. 1,27,86,930/- under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 showing book profit u/s 115JB at Rs. 6,93,55,609/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) dated 26.09.2011 was issued. Thereafter, notice u/s 142

SHRI CHAITANYA BANSIBHAI. NAGORI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

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

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

depreciation in respect of the plinth to the file of the Assessing Officer for the purpose of fresh decision in accordance with law. Since the notice under section 143(2)(i) was issued for limited scrutiny, the Assessing Officer was precluded from considering any other issue while making the assessment under section 143(3) under limited scrutiny. The decision

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

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)

142 taxmann.com 136 held that where interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee’s own funds and proportionate disallowance was not warranted u/s.14A of the Act by observing as follows: “Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Expenditure incurred in relation

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)

142 taxmann.com 136 held that where interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee’s own funds and proportionate disallowance was not warranted u/s.14A of the Act by observing as follows: “Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Expenditure incurred in relation

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)

142 taxmann.com 136 held that where interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee’s own funds and proportionate disallowance was not warranted u/s.14A of the Act by observing as follows: “Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Expenditure incurred in relation

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)

142 taxmann.com 136 held that where interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee’s own funds and proportionate disallowance was not warranted u/s.14A of the Act by observing as follows: “Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Expenditure incurred in relation

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2,31,68,000/- + Rs. 1,16,00,000/-) as cost towards building and claimed depreciation on the same for the entire year. The AO disallowed the claim of the depreciation in earlier years by holding that having right to use property by virtue of acquiring share does not mean assessee becomes the owner of the building. Thus