DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

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

Section 5. However, in any such litigation suit SPIL agrees to assist SPGI, without assuming any monetary obligation. 4.3 Legal Compliance. SPIL hereby undertakes to comply with all requirements of law for obtaining various licenses, approvals, permissions and no objection certificates for meeting all legal obligations in respect of any matter ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

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

Section 5. However, in any such litigation suit SPIL agrees to assist SPGI, without assuming any monetary obligation. 4.3 Legal Compliance. SPIL hereby undertakes to comply with all requirements of law for obtaining various licenses, approvals, permissions and no objection certificates for meeting all legal obligations in respect of any matter ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

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

Section 5. However, in any such litigation suit SPIL agrees to assist SPGI, without assuming any monetary obligation. 4.3 Legal Compliance. SPIL hereby undertakes to comply with all requirements of law for obtaining various licenses, approvals, permissions and no objection certificates for meeting all legal obligations in respect of any matter ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories

NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

224\n(Panaji), Borkar Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2010] 101 TTJ 99\n(Panaji), Sooraj Automobiles Ltd. v. DCIT [2006] 9 SOT 87 (Delhi),\nand DCIT v. Toyo Engg. Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 560\n(Mumbai), to hold that depreciation on self-generated goodwill is\nnot allowable. The CIT(A) accordingly upheld the Assessing\nOfficer's action in disallowing

THE ACTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

224\n(Panaji), Borkar Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2010] 101 TTJ 99\n(Panaji), Sooraj Automobiles Ltd. v. DCIT [2006] 9 SOT 87 (Delhi),\nand DCIT v. Toyo Engg. Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 560\n(Mumbai), to hold that depreciation on self-generated goodwill is\nnot allowable. The CIT(A) accordingly upheld the Assessing\nOfficer's action in disallowing

NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

224\n(Panaji), Borkar Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2010] 101 TTJ 99\n(Panaji), Sooraj Automobiles Ltd. v. DCIT [2006] 9 SOT 87 (Delhi),\nand DCIT v. Toyo Engg. Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 560\n(Mumbai), to hold that depreciation on self-generated goodwill is\nnot allowable. The CIT(A) accordingly upheld the Assessing\nOfficer's action in disallowing

THE ACTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

224\n(Panaji), Borkar Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2010] 101 TTJ 99\n(Panaji), Sooraj Automobiles Ltd. v. DCIT [2006] 9 SOT 87 (Delhi),\nand DCIT v. Toyo Engg. Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 560\n(Mumbai), to hold that depreciation on self-generated goodwill is\nnot allowable. The CIT(A) accordingly upheld the Assessing\nOfficer's action in disallowing

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. STHAPATYA SHILP CONSTRUCTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 907/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.170/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 2, Abhiraj Complex, Ahmedabad. 68-B, Swastic Society, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs2922P

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : 8.2 From the above, it is transpired that it is necessary for the AO before initiating the proceedings under section 147 of the Act to form reasons

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4, NOW CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar & Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Gujarat Mineral Development Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Corporation Ltd. Vs Ahmedabad. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Gujarat Mineral Development Ahmedabad. Vs Corporation Ltd. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, With Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri James Kurian, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptathe Present Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Pertain To The Same Assessment Year & Are Against Orders Passed By The

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2005-06. 2. While the assessee has come up in appeal against order of the ld.CIT(A) passed in quantum proceedings, both the assessee and the Revenue have filed appeal against order passed by the ld.CIT(A) in penalty proceedings, wherein the ld.CIT(A) had deleted penalty levied on certain

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar & Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Gujarat Mineral Development Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Corporation Ltd. Vs Ahmedabad. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Gujarat Mineral Development Ahmedabad. Vs Corporation Ltd. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, With Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri James Kurian, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptathe Present Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Pertain To The Same Assessment Year & Are Against Orders Passed By The

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2005-06. 2. While the assessee has come up in appeal against order of the ld.CIT(A) passed in quantum proceedings, both the assessee and the Revenue have filed appeal against order passed by the ld.CIT(A) in penalty proceedings, wherein the ld.CIT(A) had deleted penalty levied on certain

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar & Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Gujarat Mineral Development Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Corporation Ltd. Vs Ahmedabad. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Gujarat Mineral Development Ahmedabad. Vs Corporation Ltd. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, With Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri James Kurian, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptathe Present Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Pertain To The Same Assessment Year & Are Against Orders Passed By The

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2005-06. 2. While the assessee has come up in appeal against order of the ld.CIT(A) passed in quantum proceedings, both the assessee and the Revenue have filed appeal against order passed by the ld.CIT(A) in penalty proceedings, wherein the ld.CIT(A) had deleted penalty levied on certain

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1285 & 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & Ita No.1396 & 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1327 & 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1414 & 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. Torrent House Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench

section (5) of Section 80-IA. In this case, the question that arose for consideration ITA.Nos.1285/Ahd/2017 & 7 others A.Y.2009-10 38 before this Court related to computation of the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80-E, as it then existed, after setting off the loss incurred by the assessee in the manufacture of alloy steels. Section

DCIT. CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Torque Automotive Pvt. Dcit Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, Mrudul Tower, Ahmedabad Vs Behind Times Of India, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad- 380009 [Pan No. : Aacct6528R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Alok Kumar, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23.11.2022

depreciation of Rs. 81,08,525/- and added balance amount of RS. 10,48,11,003/- as the income of the assessee and also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad. The Ld. CIT(A) held that

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the respective Assessment Years (A.Y.). Since the issues involved are common, they are decided through a common order. Facts of the case 2. The assessee is a closely held company and engaged in providing micro credit finance. It was incorporated

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the respective Assessment Years (A.Y.). Since the issues involved are common, they are decided through a common order. Facts of the case 2. The assessee is a closely held company and engaged in providing micro credit finance. It was incorporated

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the respective Assessment Years (A.Y.). Since the issues involved are common, they are decided through a common order. Facts of the case 2. The assessee is a closely held company and engaged in providing micro credit finance. It was incorporated

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the respective Assessment Years (A.Y.). Since the issues involved are common, they are decided through a common order. Facts of the case 2. The assessee is a closely held company and engaged in providing micro credit finance. It was incorporated

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the respective Assessment Years (A.Y.). Since the issues involved are common, they are decided through a common order. Facts of the case 2. The assessee is a closely held company and engaged in providing micro credit finance. It was incorporated