ASCENT FINECHEM PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent (S) Appellant Respondent 1-2 438-439/Ahd/2018 2008-09 Ascent Finechem Pvt. A.C.I.T, Circle- & Ltd., 1(1)(2), 2009-10 11, Ground Floor, Ahmedabad. Suryarath, B/H. Whilte House, Panchawati, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan No.Aabca6349Q

234-B of the Act. 7. The assessee craves leave to add, to alter and/or to modify any grounds of appeal. The First issue raised by the assessee is that Ld.CIT (A) erred in upholding the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 6,26,627/- on storage tank. 36. At the outset, we note that the fact in the above ground

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. AMOL DICALITE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 539/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1246/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, Amol Dicalite Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Akshay, 53, Ahmedabad Shirmali Society Navrangpura, Ahmedabad

234) ITA nos.539/AHD/2018 & 1246/AHD/2016 Asstt. Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 13 Mr. Hunt Waugh Jr.(USA) Rs. 37,33,847/- As per the note, Mr. Hunt Waugh Jr. was present in India for 63 days. However, the stay of Mr. Hunt does not exceed 90 days. There was also no factual finding regarding fixed base of Mr. Hunt in India

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AMOL DICALITE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 539/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1246/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, Amol Dicalite Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Akshay, 53, Ahmedabad Shirmali Society Navrangpura, Ahmedabad

234) ITA nos.539/AHD/2018 & 1246/AHD/2016 Asstt. Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 13 Mr. Hunt Waugh Jr.(USA) Rs. 37,33,847/- As per the note, Mr. Hunt Waugh Jr. was present in India for 63 days. However, the stay of Mr. Hunt does not exceed 90 days. There was also no factual finding regarding fixed base of Mr. Hunt in India

SHREE VEER BUILDBEST PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(3) NOW WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.892/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shree Veer Buildbest Pvt.Ltd. The Ito बनाम/ 302, Swapneel – 5 Ward-4(1)(1) Commerce Six Road Ahmedabad- 380 015 V/S. Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakcs 8358 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 21/09/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “ The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 28/03/2014 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. Shree Veer Buildbest Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2011-12

Section 32, the term “owner” should be interpreted in a wider sense to include not only legal ownership but also cases where the assessee has acquired dominion over the asset and is in possession and control of the same. 7.1. In the present case the assessee is using these assets for the purposes of business of the assessee

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

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

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

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, 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, 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

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA vs. M/S. UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, PANCHMAHAL

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1636/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Sun Petrochemicals P.Ltd. Baroda. Vs 402, R.K. Centre, 4Th Floor Fatehgunj Main Road Vadodara 390 002. Pan : Aaecs 0891 E आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1635/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Unimed Technologies Ltd Baroda. Vs Survey No.22 & 234 Baska Ujeti Halol Panchmahal, Gujarat 389 350 Pan : Aaace 4022 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Virendra Ojha, Cit-Dr

234 Baska Ujeti Halol Panchmahal, Gujarat 389 350 PAN : AAACE 4022 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, AR Revenue by : Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 12/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 11/05/2020 O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT: Present two appeals are directed

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD., VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1636/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Sun Petrochemicals P.Ltd. Baroda. Vs 402, R.K. Centre, 4Th Floor Fatehgunj Main Road Vadodara 390 002. Pan : Aaecs 0891 E आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1635/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Unimed Technologies Ltd Baroda. Vs Survey No.22 & 234 Baska Ujeti Halol Panchmahal, Gujarat 389 350 Pan : Aaace 4022 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Virendra Ojha, Cit-Dr

234 Baska Ujeti Halol Panchmahal, Gujarat 389 350 PAN : AAACE 4022 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, AR Revenue by : Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 12/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 11/05/2020 O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT: Present two appeals are directed

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80-IA of the Act. 69. The learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not have nexus with the distribution of power activity of the assessee. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO. 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

depreciation to the extent of Rs.89,26,569/- and the interest levied of Rs.5,63,40,61,719/- u/s 234B of the Act though was allowed finally, all for statistical purposes, has not been challenged before us by the Revenue. 7.9. In appeal, the Yoga or Sudarshan Kriya has been held to be covered under the clause “donation” and “medical

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

depreciation to the extent of Rs.89,26,569/- and the interest levied of Rs.5,63,40,61,719/- u/s 234B of the Act though was allowed finally, all for statistical purposes, has not been challenged before us by the Revenue. 7.9. In appeal, the Yoga or Sudarshan Kriya has been held to be covered under the clause “donation” and “medical

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

depreciation to the extent of Rs.89,26,569/- and the interest levied of Rs.5,63,40,61,719/- u/s 234B of the Act though was allowed finally, all for statistical purposes, has not been challenged before us by the Revenue. 7.9. In appeal, the Yoga or Sudarshan Kriya has been held to be covered under the clause “donation” and “medical

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

depreciation to the extent of Rs.89,26,569/- and the interest levied of Rs.5,63,40,61,719/- u/s 234B of the Act though was allowed finally, all for statistical purposes, has not been challenged before us by the Revenue. 7.9. In appeal, the Yoga or Sudarshan Kriya has been held to be covered under the clause “donation” and “medical

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed as not pressed

depreciation on Hummer car. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 108. Ground no. 8 is thus allowed.” 35. In our view, since the issue is directly covered in favour of the assessee in his own case for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 and assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, respectfully following the orders passed on the assessee