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

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 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 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

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

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 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 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 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

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of depreciation on goodwill for Rs.23,03,33,7827- 4) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned

JT. CTI (OSD), CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of depreciation on goodwill for Rs.23,03,33,7827- 4) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of depreciation on goodwill for Rs.23,03,33,7827- 4) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned

THE DCIT, CIR-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of depreciation on goodwill for Rs.23,03,33,7827- 4) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned