JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. DIT, (INTL. TAXN.),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2388-2389/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2004-2005 & 2006-07 Joshi Technologies International Inc., A.D.I.T(International Prahaladnagar Garden, Vs. Tax), 701 Parshwanath E Square, Ahmedabad. Near Titanium, Building Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaacj9592P

depreciation @ 80% as per Entry 111(8 )(xii) of Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962. It is submitted that it be so held now. ITA nos.2388/AHD/2015 & two others Asstt. Year 2004-05 3 5. The learned CIT(A) erred holding that interest under section 234B

SHRI ANILBHAI HIRALAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234B, & 234C is not justified. 21 Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 2.1 The assessee vide letter dated 07/09/2022 has filed

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

3) of the Act in allowing additional depreciation of Rs.58,57,95,373/- to the assessee; and, setting aside the said order by exercising the powers conferred upon him under Section 263 of the Act, he directed the Assessing Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 5 Officer to frame the assessment afresh. Aggrieved by the order

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

234B and 234C of the Act. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Hence Ground No. 2 is dismissed. 60. Ground No.3 : Disallowance under section 14A 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance

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)

section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. Ground No. 1: Disallowance of guarantee fees paid to Govt. of Gujarat of Rs. 7.19 crores. This guarantee fees paid

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)

section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. Ground No. 1: Disallowance of guarantee fees paid to Govt. of Gujarat of Rs. 7.19 crores. This guarantee fees paid

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)

3 and 3.1 are allowed. 12. As regards to Ground No. 4 and 4.1, the disallowance of depreciation on oil will and oil field at higher rate of 60% as per Appendix I to the Rules, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of extraction/production of mineral oil and entitled to depreciation at the rate

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)

3 and 3.1 are allowed. 12. As regards to Ground No. 4 and 4.1, the disallowance of depreciation on oil will and oil field at higher rate of 60% as per Appendix I to the Rules, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of extraction/production of mineral oil and entitled to depreciation at the rate

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)

3 and 3.1 are allowed. 12. As regards to Ground No. 4 and 4.1, the disallowance of depreciation on oil will and oil field at higher rate of 60% as per Appendix I to the Rules, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of extraction/production of mineral oil and entitled to depreciation at the rate

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

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

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

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

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 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 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

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

3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim of set off of brought forward business losses and depreciation: 19. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessing officer may be directed to allow the carry forward of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as per appeal effect giving orders of earlier years. Accordingly

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

3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim of set off of brought forward business losses and depreciation: 19. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessing officer may be directed to allow the carry forward of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as per appeal effect giving orders of earlier years. Accordingly

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

3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim of set off of brought forward business losses and depreciation: 19. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessing officer may be directed to allow the carry forward of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as per appeal effect giving orders of earlier years. Accordingly