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

depreciation on related assets to its P&L account. 1.4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition to book profits u/s.115JB by merely relying on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in Gujarat State Energy Generation Ltd. (ITA No.1777/Ahd/2009), without examining the facts

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

depreciation on related assets to its P&L account. 1.4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition to book profits u/s.115JB by merely relying on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in Gujarat State Energy Generation Ltd. (ITA No.1777/Ahd/2009), without examining the facts

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

depreciation on related assets to its P&L account. 1.4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition to book profits u/s.115JB by merely relying on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in Gujarat State Energy Generation Ltd. (ITA No.1777/Ahd/2009), without examining the facts

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

depreciation on related assets to its P&L account. 1.4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition to book profits u/s.115JB by merely relying on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in Gujarat State Energy Generation Ltd. (ITA No.1777/Ahd/2009), without examining the facts

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

depreciation on related assets to its P&L account. 1.4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition to book profits u/s.115JB by merely relying on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in Gujarat State Energy Generation Ltd. (ITA No.1777/Ahd/2009), without examining the facts

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. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 3 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.17,27,50,337/- 4) In law and in facts and circumstances

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. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 3 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.17,27,50,337/- 4) In law and in facts and circumstances

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. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 3 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.17,27,50,337/- 4) In law and in facts and circumstances

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. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 3 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.17,27,50,337/- 4) In law and in facts and circumstances

THE VARDHMAN STAMPINGS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

249/- pertaining to revenue transactions relating\nimport of goods for its use in normal course of the business activities carried on by\nthe assesses.\nThus, the assessee has rightly and consistently recorded the effect of exchange rate\ndifferences and as a result has claimed such loss arising due to changes in exchange\nrate as an allowable business expenses

THE VARDHMAN STAMPINGS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

249/- pertaining to revenue transactions relating\nimport of goods for its use in normal course of the business activities carried on by\nthe assesses.\nThus, the assessee has rightly and consistently recorded the effect of exchange rate\ndifferences and as a result has claimed such loss arising due to changes in exchange\nrate as an allowable business expenses

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

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,BARODA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Waseem Ahmed & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09 Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Acit, Cir.2(1)(2) Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan Vs Baroda. Race Course Circle, Baroda Pan : Aadcm 7339 H

2) is required to be made, as the addition was already made under regular provisions, to deferred income credited to the P&L account, on the same basis as followed by you in debiting depreciation on related assets. It therefore, appears that assessment order u/s.147/143(3) is erroneous in so far as I is prejudicial to the interests

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

2 per cent. We observe that in the instant facts, the assessee has computed the ALP at LIBOR plus 2.5%. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has upheld the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer on the Ground that the assessee has not given the comparable basis for arriving at the aforesaid rate. However, in our view, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

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

2 assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.1,73,17,97,724/-; and, after allowing the set off of unabsorbed depreciation loss to that extent, the total assessed income of the assessee was determined at Rs. Nil. The records of the said assessment came to be examined by the concerned PCIT and on such examination

SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

249 ITR 0597 ,while seized with the issue of inclusion of capital gains in book profits as per section 115J held that there is no question why the same should not be included being clearly in the nature of profits which are to be disclosed as per Schedule VI part II & III of the Companies Act. The relevant findings

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

249 ITR 0597 ,while seized with the issue of inclusion of capital gains in book profits as per section 115J held that there is no question why the same should not be included being clearly in the nature of profits which are to be disclosed as per Schedule VI part II & III of the Companies Act. The relevant findings

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-\n13 & 2013-14 filed by the assessee are partly allowed, while the appeal of the assessee\nfor AY 2014-15 is allowed

section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T.\nAct.\n3)\nIn law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned\nCIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of depreciation on goodwill\nfor Rs.17,27,50,337/-\n4) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned\nCIT