ENERGY-MISSION MACHINERIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMADABAD vs. CIRCLE 2(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation allowance in respect of a block of asset which has not been given full effect to prior to the assessment year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2020, corresponding adjustment shall be made to the written down value of such block of assets as on the 1st day of April, 2019 in the prescribed manner, if the option

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INA BEARING INDIA PVT. LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CICLE-1(1)(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation were made. Consequently, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) and subsequently to the ITAT.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable in law. It reasoned that the adjustments arose from differences in interpretation of debatable issues, and the assessee had acted in good faith and with

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

1A), the total income of the person referred to therein, shall be computed— (i) without any exemption or deduction under the provisions of clause (5) or clause (13A) or prescribed under clause (14)(other than those as may be prescribed for this purpose) or clause (17) or clause (32), of section 10 or section 10AA or clause (ii) or clause

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

1A), the total income of the person referred to therein, shall be computed— (i) without any exemption or deduction under the provisions of clause (5) or clause (13A) or prescribed under clause (14)(other than those as may be prescribed for this purpose) or clause (17) or clause (32), of section 10 or section 10AA or clause (ii) or clause

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

AARVEE DENIMS & EXPORTS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.396/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Aarvee Denims & Exports Ltd. The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 191, Shahwadi Ahmedabad-1 V/S. Narol–Sarkhej Highway Ahmedabad – 382 405 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 6019 P (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Divyakant Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prithviraj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

depreciation were thoroughly examined and verified by the AO from the audited financial statements and the Tax Audit Report. The AO reviewed the relevant documents, was satisfied with the available details, and therefore did not request further information. This indicated that the AO had applied his mind while finalizing the assessment. The assessee also placed reliance on some judicial precedents

M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the order of the Ld

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

section 32AC of the Act, it can be clearly concluded that the assessee- company, though acquired the new eligible assets but did not install them in the previous year ending on 31.03.2017 and therefore, it would not be eligible to claim deduction u/s 32AC(1A) of the Act as the prime condition of installing the eligible plant & machinery

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

Section 143(2) of the Act dated 21.03.2016 followed by different notices in terms of the provisions of law including 142(1) r.w.s. 129 of the Act dated 20.09.2016 etc. were issued. Such assessment was finalized upon restricting the disallowance @15% instead of higher rate @ 30% on depreciation of Dumper & Tripper to the tune of Rs.8

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

Section 143(2) of the Act dated 21.03.2016 followed by different notices in terms of the provisions of law including 142(1) r.w.s. 129 of the Act dated 20.09.2016 etc. were issued. Such assessment was finalized upon restricting the disallowance @15% instead of higher rate @ 30% on depreciation of Dumper & Tripper to the tune of Rs.8

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

Section 143(2) of the Act dated 21.03.2016 followed by different notices in terms of the provisions of law including 142(1) r.w.s. 129 of the Act dated 20.09.2016 etc. were issued. Such assessment was finalized upon restricting the disallowance @15% instead of higher rate @ 30% on depreciation of Dumper & Tripper to the tune of Rs.8

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with sections 198 and 309 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Business expenditure - Allowability of - Assessment year 1979-80 - Whether when vehicles belonging to an assessee-company are used by its directors, for personal or other purposes, it would be wrong to hold that vehicles are personally used by company, because

THE ITO, WARD 8(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VARIJ BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed; whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Memeber & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09 Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-8(4) 2, Sejal House Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008. Pan : Aaccv5656Q Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-8(4) Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs 2, Sejal House Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms.Nupur Shah, Ar & Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshkumar L. Sadhu, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Are Cross Appeals One Filed By The Assessee In Ita No.1915/Ahd/2013 & Another Filed By The Revenue In Ita No.2008/Ahd/2013 Against Order Dated 9.5.2013 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Ahmedabad [In Short Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Relating To The Assessment Year 2008-09. Ita No.1915 & 2008/Ahd/2013 2 2. Original Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act Of Rs.92,00,000/- On Account Of Share Application Money Received In Cash.

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). …. ….. …… [Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment. Section 148. Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, and subject to the provisions of section 148A, the Assessing Officer

VARIJ BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,. WARD-8(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed; whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Memeber & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09 Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-8(4) 2, Sejal House Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008. Pan : Aaccv5656Q Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-8(4) Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs 2, Sejal House Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms.Nupur Shah, Ar & Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshkumar L. Sadhu, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Are Cross Appeals One Filed By The Assessee In Ita No.1915/Ahd/2013 & Another Filed By The Revenue In Ita No.2008/Ahd/2013 Against Order Dated 9.5.2013 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Ahmedabad [In Short Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Relating To The Assessment Year 2008-09. Ita No.1915 & 2008/Ahd/2013 2 2. Original Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act Of Rs.92,00,000/- On Account Of Share Application Money Received In Cash.

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). …. ….. …… [Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment. Section 148. Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, and subject to the provisions of section 148A, the Assessing Officer