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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us.

xviii) of the Income Tax Return and accordingly, passed order u/s.154 of the Act denying the carried forward of losses to the tune of Rs.2,38,86,742/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A), however appreciated the contention made by the assessee before him that the loss for the impugned year was depreciation loss and not business loss and noting

CHIRIPAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 708/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Chirpal Industries Limited, D.C.I.T, Chirpal House, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2), Shivranjani Cross Road, Ahmedabad. Satellight, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaacc8513B

24,946.00 as per the provisions of The Companies Act. According to the AO, such depreciation claimed under The Companies Act is not allowable A.Y. 2014-15 5 deduction and therefore the same was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. CITA also upheld the finding of the AO subject to the depreciation calculated under

M/S. JINDAL WORLD WIDE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABADQ

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) (Through Virtual Court)

24 -11-2020 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (‘hereinafter called CIT(A)’) order no. CIT(A)- 2 . AY. 2014-15 2/10210/AC. Cir. (2)(1)(2)/2017-18 order dated 19/09/2018 arising out of assessment order dated 15/11/2017. Assessee has taken following grounds

THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

depreciable assets. 33. Learned representatives fairly agree that this issue is squarely covered, in favour of the assessee, by a decision dated 1st January 2016 in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08. A copy of the said decision was placed before us as well. 34. We see no reasons to take any other view

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

depreciable assets. 33. Learned representatives fairly agree that this issue is squarely covered, in favour of the assessee, by a decision dated 1st January 2016 in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08. A copy of the said decision was placed before us as well. 34. We see no reasons to take any other view

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

depreciable assets. 33. Learned representatives fairly agree that this issue is squarely covered, in favour of the assessee, by a decision dated 1st January 2016 in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08. A copy of the said decision was placed before us as well. 34. We see no reasons to take any other view

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

depreciable assets. 33. Learned representatives fairly agree that this issue is squarely covered, in favour of the assessee, by a decision dated 1st January 2016 in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08. A copy of the said decision was placed before us as well. 34. We see no reasons to take any other view

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

depreciable assets. 33. Learned representatives fairly agree that this issue is squarely covered, in favour of the assessee, by a decision dated 1st January 2016 in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08. A copy of the said decision was placed before us as well. 34. We see no reasons to take any other view

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

depreciable assets. 33. Learned representatives fairly agree that this issue is squarely covered, in favour of the assessee, by a decision dated 1st January 2016 in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08. A copy of the said decision was placed before us as well. 34. We see no reasons to take any other view

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. JINDAL WORLDWIDE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee in its cross objection is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1843/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 145/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

depreciation on goodwill amounting to Rs.5,57,63,315/- for which relevant facts are duly available on record in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) & NTPC vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC). 22. In the result, additional ground raised by the assessee