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

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

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

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 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

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

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 DCIT, CIRCLE-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

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

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

V.S. META CAST PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 V.S. Metacast P.Lttd. Dcit, Cir.4(1)(2) A-201, Mondeal Square Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Honest Restaurant Prahaladnagar. Pan : Aaecv 1729 L

depreciation claim on DG set of Rs.99,473/-, (iii) addition of Rs.6,73,600/- under section 56(2)(viib) r.w.r. 11U/UA being difference in share valuation, and (iv) disallowance of interest free loans and advances under section 36(1(iii) of Rs.2,50,000/-. Thus, the ld.AO determined a loss of Rs.1,65,781,839/-. The AO also determined book

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation of plant and machinery used by Sun Pharma Industries & M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim. III(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred in deleting, the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of selling and distribution expenses of Rs.182,57,00,000/- incurred by the working

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

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 JT. CIT, RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. UNIQUE METROPOILS,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

4. We shall first deal with the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. I.T.A Nos. 3140/Ahd/2015 & 3093/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 5 DCIT vs. Unique Metropolis Ground No. 1 of assessee’s appeal and Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of Department’s appeal: Addition of Rs. 5,50,656/- as bogus purchases calculated at 12.5% of gross profit