KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

depreciation under section 32 of the Act, the twin condition of ownership and the assets used for the purpose of assessee’s business must be satisfied. 2.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.35,20,002/- made by AO u/s 14A r.w.r 8D( of the Act, on account of interest expense

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

depreciation under section 32 of the Act, the twin condition of ownership and the assets used for the purpose of assessee’s business must be satisfied. 2.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.35,20,002/- made by AO u/s 14A r.w.r 8D( of the Act, on account of interest expense

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHANDWALA INTEGRATED FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

depreciation under section 32 of the Act, the twin condition of ownership and the assets used for the purpose of assessee’s business must be satisfied. 2.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.35,20,002/- made by AO u/s 14A r.w.r 8D( of the Act, on account of interest expense

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

depreciation under section 32 of the Act, the twin condition of ownership and the assets used for the purpose of assessee’s business must be satisfied. 2.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.35,20,002/- made by AO u/s 14A r.w.r 8D( of the Act, on account of interest expense

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS SECURITIES LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

depreciation under section 32 of the Act, the twin condition of ownership and the assets used for the purpose of assessee’s business must be satisfied. 2.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.35,20,002/- made by AO u/s 14A r.w.r 8D( of the Act, on account of interest expense

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

depreciation under section 32 of the Act, the twin condition of ownership and the assets used for the purpose of assessee’s business must be satisfied. 2.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.35,20,002/- made by AO u/s 14A r.w.r 8D( of the Act, on account of interest expense

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT INSECTICIDES LIMITED, ANKLESHWAR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Asstt.Commissioner Of Gujarat Insecticides Limited Income Tax Vs Plot No.805/806, Gidc Estate Circle-2(1)(1) Ankleshwar Vadodara Bharuch – 393 002 Pan: Aaacg 8436 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) … "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Arti Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 19/10/2023, Arising Out Of An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. Facts Of The Case: The Acit Vs. Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. Asst. Year : 2015-16

depreciation in respect of machinery acquired and installed in the last year without appreciating the fact that relevant proviso to section 32(1)(ia) of the Act was brought by Finance Act, 2015 and applicable for A.Y 2016-17 onwards? 4, The appellant craves leaves ot add, modify, amend or alter any grounds of appeal at the time

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. JAMNAGAR AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

depreciation as per section 32 of the Act. (v) A.O. is directed to calculate the expenditure incurred or amount towards the objects of the appellant. The amount applied would also include the capital expenditure as per the direction given above (Reliance placed on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Satyavijay Patel Hindu Dharmashala Trust

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 43(1) of the Act, the capital grant should be reduced from the cost/WDV of the relevant asset, and thereafter the depreciation is to be calculated. Thus, the capital grant receipt in respect of asset, on which depreciation is allowable at the rate different from 15% should be worked out as per the applicable rate. The DR could

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 43(1) of the Act, the capital grant should be reduced from the cost/WDV of the relevant asset, and thereafter the depreciation is to be calculated. Thus, the capital grant receipt in respect of asset, on which depreciation is allowable at the rate different from 15% should be worked out as per the applicable rate. The DR could

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 43(1) of the Act, the capital grant should be reduced from the cost/WDV of the relevant asset, and thereafter the depreciation is to be calculated. Thus, the capital grant receipt in respect of asset, on which depreciation is allowable at the rate different from 15% should be worked out as per the applicable rate. The DR could

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 43(1) of the Act, the capital grant should be reduced from the cost/WDV of the relevant asset, and thereafter the depreciation is to be calculated. Thus, the capital grant receipt in respect of asset, on which depreciation is allowable at the rate different from 15% should be worked out as per the applicable rate. The DR could

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 43(1) of the Act, the capital grant should be reduced from the cost/WDV of the relevant asset, and thereafter the depreciation is to be calculated. Thus, the capital grant receipt in respect of asset, on which depreciation is allowable at the rate different from 15% should be worked out as per the applicable rate. The DR could

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 43(1) of the Act, the capital grant should be reduced from the cost/WDV of the relevant asset, and thereafter the depreciation is to be calculated. Thus, the capital grant receipt in respect of asset, on which depreciation is allowable at the rate different from 15% should be worked out as per the applicable rate. The DR could

ASIAN OILFIELD SERVICES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble&

190-193 of Paper Book. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that these evidences clearly show that the assets used in mineral oil extraction activities are falling in clause (xii) of Schedule of depreciation and eligible for special rate of depreciation at 60%. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the depreciation should be allowed to the assessee treating

ASIAN OILFIELD SERVICE LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble&

190-193 of Paper Book. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that these evidences clearly show that the assets used in mineral oil extraction activities are falling in clause (xii) of Schedule of depreciation and eligible for special rate of depreciation at 60%. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the depreciation should be allowed to the assessee treating

AMNS PORTS VIZAG LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ESSAR VIZAG TERMINALS LIMITED),SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Revision Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue (Scope of) Assessment year 2010-11 High Court by impugned order held that Commissioner has power to consider all aspects which were subject matter of Assessing Officer's order, if in his opinion, they were erroneous, despite assessee's appeal on that or some

PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT-2, BARODA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Principal Commissioner Of Paschim Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd., Income-Tax-2, Off. Nana Mava Main Road, Vs. Vadodara Laxmi Nagar, Rajkot-360004 Pan : Aadcp 1453 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vadodara-2 [Herein-After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 27.03.2019, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “(1) That On Facts & In Law, The Learned Cit Has Grievously Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act, Without Recording A Satisfaction As To How The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. (2) That On Facts & In Law, The Proceedings U/S.263 Are Void As The Original Assessment Order Was Passed U/S.143 (3) Of The Act After Due Inquiry & Application Of Mind / & Is Not Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

depreciation of Rs. 190,48,38,998/- and the same was allowed during the assessment proceedings. The assessee company is engaged in the distribution of power. As per section