DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE PR. CIT-1,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Years : 2015-16 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., Pri. Commissioner Of Urja Sadan, Nana Varachha Road, Vs Income-Tax-1, Kapodara Char Rasta, Surat, Ahmedabad Guajrat-395006 Pan : Aabcd 8912 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 234B made for the purpose to remove the ambiguity was required to be held as retrospective in nature. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 7 9. The learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the claim of the assessee for additional depreciation

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 55. The Ld. AR submitted that the AO wrongly stated that after adjustment of credit balance of general reserve there will be no brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Rajendra Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 2177/AHD/2018

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation of earlier years. 6.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has dismissed the ground relating to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the I T Act. 7.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation of earlier years. 6.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has dismissed the ground relating to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the I T Act. 7.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation of earlier years. 6.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has dismissed the ground relating to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the I T Act. 7.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation of earlier years. 6.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has dismissed the ground relating to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the I T Act. 7.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation of earlier years. 6.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has dismissed the ground relating to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the I T Act. 7.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation of earlier years. 6.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has dismissed the ground relating to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the I T Act. 7.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, MEHSANA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The assessee company is in the business of purchase and distribution of electricity. The assessee filed e-return of income on 28.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming set off of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 4, BARODA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The assessee company is in the business of purchase and distribution of electricity. The assessee filed e-return of income on 28.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming set off of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, MEHSANA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The assessee company is in the business of purchase and distribution of electricity. The assessee filed e-return of income on 28.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming set off of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, BARODA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The assessee company is in the business of purchase and distribution of electricity. The assessee filed e-return of income on 28.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming set off of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The assessee company is in the business of purchase and distribution of electricity. The assessee filed e-return of income on 28.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming set off of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, BARODA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The assessee company is in the business of purchase and distribution of electricity. The assessee filed e-return of income on 28.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming set off of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, MEHSANA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The assessee company is in the business of purchase and distribution of electricity. The assessee filed e-return of income on 28.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming set off of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. These factual aspects were not disputed by the Ld. DR in the present Assessment Years as well. Thus, Ground No. 5 is allowed. 19. As regards to Ground Nos. 6 and 6.1, disallowance of weighted deduction under Section 35 (1)(ii) of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. These factual aspects were not disputed by the Ld. DR in the present Assessment Years as well. Thus, Ground No. 5 is allowed. 19. As regards to Ground Nos. 6 and 6.1, disallowance of weighted deduction under Section 35 (1)(ii) of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. These factual aspects were not disputed by the Ld. DR in the present Assessment Years as well. Thus, Ground No. 5 is allowed. 19. As regards to Ground Nos. 6 and 6.1, disallowance of weighted deduction under Section 35 (1)(ii) of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee