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

22 had disallowed the depreciation primarily on the ground that no cost was incurred for acquiring the goodwill and that the goodwill was not recorded in the books of the amalgamating company prior to amalgamation. The AO held that such goodwill arose merely on account of accounting adjustments and hence no depreciation was allowable under section

THE DCIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. V. F. ARVIND BRANDS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and the CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1904/Ahd/2013 & Cross Objection No. 204/Ahd/2013 (In Ita No.1904/Ahd/2013) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 D.C.I.T.(Osd), M/S. V. F. Arvind Brands Pvt. Circle-8, Vs. Ltd. Ahmedabad. Arvind Mills Premises, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad-380025. Pan: Aaccv 2727 L (Applicant) (Responent) / Cross Objector

section 32 of the Act. 8.11 The purpose for the depreciation on the intangible assets has been explained in the memorandum of the finance Act to 1998, and there was no such limitation provided for the allowability of the depreciation on technical know-how. Therefore we are not inclined to uphold the finding of the AO that the 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

22 on 30.10.2018 declaring total income at a loss of Rs. (–) 27,49,550. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under the E-Assessment Scheme, 2020 with the reason “Very Low PBDIT (Profit before Depreciation, Interest and Taxes) as compared to business turnover.” Pursuant thereto, notices under section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. KANSARA POPATLAL TRIBHOVANDAS METAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the Cross

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation worked out by assessee on basis of income- tax records and debited to profit and loss account was not violative of provisions of Companies Act and ITAT has not erred in cancelling order passed by Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. Again, in the case of CIT Ludhiana v. Sona Woollen Mills (P.) Ltd. 2007] 160 Taxman 22

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

depreciation was entirely in accordance with the law and the facts of the case. No error, much less a prejudicial error, is demonstrated in this regard. 22. The PCIT alleged that the assessee claimed excess deduction under section

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation worked out by assessee on basis of income- tax records and debited to profit and loss account was not violative of provisions of Companies Act and ITAT has not erred in cancelling order passed by Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. Again, in the case of CIT Ludhiana v. Sona Woollen Mills (P.) Ltd. 2007] 160 Taxman 22

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,, BARODA

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation worked out by assessee on basis of income- tax records and debited to profit and loss account was not violative of provisions of Companies Act and ITAT has not erred in cancelling order passed by Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. Again, in the case of CIT Ludhiana v. Sona Woollen Mills (P.) Ltd. 2007] 160 Taxman 22

M/S. SABARMATI GAS LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Sabarmati Gas Ltd. The Ld.Pr.Cit Plot No.907, Sector 21 Vs Ahmedabad-3. Gandhinagar 382 021 Pan : Aakcs 0110 N

section shall apply whether or not the assessee has claimed the deduction in respect of depreciation in computing his total income. Therefore, the assessee could not have been denied depreciation in preceding years for not having claimed so and if so allowed, there is no loss of Revenue to the Department as noted above by us. There is no prejudice

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

22. In the next ground of appeal, grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.2,78,06,483/- which was added by the AO by making a disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 23. Brief facts of the case are that assessee made payments of professional fees, commission, interest

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

22. In the next ground of appeal, grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.2,78,06,483/- which was added by the AO by making a disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 23. Brief facts of the case are that assessee made payments of professional fees, commission, interest

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

22. In the next ground of appeal, grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.2,78,06,483/- which was added by the AO by making a disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 23. Brief facts of the case are that assessee made payments of professional fees, commission, interest

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

22. In the next ground of appeal, grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.2,78,06,483/- which was added by the AO by making a disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 23. Brief facts of the case are that assessee made payments of professional fees, commission, interest

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

22. In the next ground of appeal, grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.2,78,06,483/- which was added by the AO by making a disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 23. Brief facts of the case are that assessee made payments of professional fees, commission, interest

M/S. PRECIMETAL CAST PVT. LTD.,,KADI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

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

section 2(22)(e), it is required that the assessee company must be a shareholder in the company from whom the loan or advance has been taken and it does not provide that any shareholder in the assessee company who had taken any loan or advance from another company in which such shareholder is also a shareholder I.T.A No. 3499/Ahd/2015

KANSARA POPATLAL TRIBHUVAN METAL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground number 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

depreciation worked out by assessee on basis of income- tax records and debited to profit and loss account was not violative of provisions of Companies Act and ITAT has not erred in cancelling order passed by Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. Again, in the case of CIT Ludhiana v. Sona Woollen Mills (P.) Ltd. 2007] 160 Taxman 22

MAXXIS RUBBER INDIA PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

22,181 - - immediately preceding year' on asset put to use for less than 180 days 15 Total depreciation 5,29,41,01,183 - 11,07,99,883 (10+11+12+13+14) 16 Depreciation disallowed under - - section

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

22 of the Town Planning Act. The purpose and object of constitution of the Urban Development Authority is proper development or redevelopment of urban area. Even Urban Development Authority consists of (i) a Chairman to be appointed by the State Government; (ii) such persons, not exceeding [four in number] who are members of the local authority or authorities functioning

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

depreciation on goodwill and granting consequential relief. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 6 to 12 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Ground No. 13 – Allocation of Common Expenses while Computing Deduction under Sections 80-IC, 80-IE & 10AA 8. This ground relates to deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of allocation of common/indirect expenses to the eligible units

SUZUKI MOTOR GUJARAT PVT LTD,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDANAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section - 50(5+ 8-3a-3b -4 -7-19) Written down value on the last day 21 16,89,99,13,280 - 18,13,29,768 of previous year (6+ 9-15) 7.2 For the year under consideration, the assessee claimed aggregate depreciation of Rs.529,41,01,183/- which included additional depreciation of Rs.156,00,22