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 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

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

4 business of generation or generation and distribution of power was made eligible to claim additional depreciation. Relying on this amended position applicable to the year under consideration, i.e. AY 2015-16, the learned PCIT held that the assessee engaged only in the business of distribution of power was not entitled to claim additional depreciation and it became entitled

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

THA ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

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

249/- made by A.O, on account of product registration expenses.\n4.\nThe Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of\nRs.212,82,47,627/- made by A.O. on account of deduction u/s 80IA.\n5. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of\nRs.64,33,028/- made

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NASCENT INFO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2828/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Ito M/S. Nascent Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Ward-3(1)(1), Vs. A-805, Sapath-Iv, Opp. Ahmedabad Karnavati Club, Ahmedabad- 380054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aac Cn3 670 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Santosh Karnani, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Mehul K. Patel, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 13/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed - Am:

4. The AO subsequently issued a notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide dated 23-03-2015 for levying the penalty on account of furnishing inaccurate particular of income. 5. The assessee in compliance to the notice submitted that it had claimed depreciation on the lease datacentre after having a reliance on the judgment

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. AAGAM INFRABUILD PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1762/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee nor any written submission has been filed at the time of hearing of the matter. 5. Before us, the Ld.DR for the revenue, strongly relied upon the order of the AO and submitted that the CIT(A) has passed the order allowing the depreciation on a wrong premise itself. According

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

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

4 and 5 relating to charging interest under Section 234AB and 234AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

4 and 5 relating to charging interest under Section 234AB and 234AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

4 and 5 relating to charging interest under Section 234AB and 234AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

4 and 5 relating to charging interest under Section 234AB and 234AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

4 and 5 relating to charging interest under Section 234AB and 234AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed