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 115JB, no adjustment on account of prior period expenses is required to be made to the net profits reflected in the profit and loss account of the assessee. Therefore we hold that no adjustment of prior period expenses is to be made by the assessee to arrive at the book profits I.T.A Nos. 3164 & 3124/Ahd/2015. A.Y. 2011-12 Page

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 115JB, no adjustment on account of prior period expenses is required to be made to the net profits reflected in the profit and loss account of the assessee. Therefore we hold that no adjustment of prior period expenses is to be made by the assessee to arrive at the book profits I.T.A Nos. 3164 & 3124/Ahd/2015. A.Y. 2011-12 Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HARYANA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 2012–13, 2013–14, 2020–21, and 2022–23. Since common issues of facts and law are involved, primarily relating to allowability of depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HARYANA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 2012–13, 2013–14, 2020–21, and 2022–23. Since common issues of facts and law are involved, primarily relating to allowability of depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, GURGAON

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 2012–13, 2013–14, 2020–21, and 2022–23. Since common issues of facts and law are involved, primarily relating to allowability of depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HARYANA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 2012–13, 2013–14, 2020–21, and 2022–23. Since common issues of facts and law are involved, primarily relating to allowability of depreciation

ACIT ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD, VALLABH VIDYANAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us.

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21. ITA No. 2084/Ahd/2024 [ACIT vs. Elecon Engineering Company Ltd.] A.Y. 2020-21 - 2 – 2. Grounds raised by the Revenue are as under: “i) “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 397/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Dcit Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 532/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Acit, Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr Dr & Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. AIA Engineering Ltd - Cross Appeals AY : 2016-17 ITA No. 532/Ahd/2024 – Department’s appeal 2. We shall first take up the Department’s appeal in ITA No. 532/Ahd/2024. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under

M/S. SINTEX-BAPL LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (1) (1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for the statistical purposes whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

section 154 r.w.s. 250 of the Act dated 14 June 2017 by observing as under: 5. Accordingly, the same is rectified and partial relied is allowed for ground of appeal raised by appellant company for disallowance of depreciation

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

250/- however, the assessee has not made any disallowance with regard to the expenses incurred relatable to earning of the exempt income. During the assessment proceedings details were called for with regard to the dividend income claimed as exempt by the assessee vide Notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act on 18.08.2015. As per the submission made

THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. KALPARATRU POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

250/- however, the assessee has not made any disallowance with regard to the expenses incurred relatable to earning of the exempt income. During the assessment proceedings details were called for with regard to the dividend income claimed as exempt by the assessee vide Notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act on 18.08.2015. As per the submission made

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

250/- however, the assessee has not made any disallowance with regard to the expenses incurred relatable to earning of the exempt income. During the assessment proceedings details were called for with regard to the dividend income claimed as exempt by the assessee vide Notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act on 18.08.2015. As per the submission made

ATUL LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT (OSD), RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Took Us Through The Chronology Of Events Leading To The Rectification Order Passed U/S. 154 Of The Act ,Which Was Carried In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Same & Against Which The Assessee Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us. Ld. Counsel For The

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2005-06 in appeal against order passed in rectification proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act. 2. During the course of hearing before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee took us through the chronology of events leading to the rectification order passed

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BODAL CHEMICAL LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 263 or 147 of the Act by the revenue. Therefore we can safely presume that the claim of the depreciation of the assessee in the 1st year has attained finality. Admittedly the 1st year is the base assessment year from where the issue of depreciation is emanating. The question arises once the depreciation has been allowed

M/S. BODAL CHEMICAL LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADD.CIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 263 or 147 of the Act by the revenue. Therefore we can safely presume that the claim of the depreciation of the assessee in the 1st year has attained finality. Admittedly the 1st year is the base assessment year from where the issue of depreciation is emanating. The question arises once the depreciation has been allowed

BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 263 or 147 of the Act by the revenue. Therefore we can safely presume that the claim of the depreciation of the assessee in the 1st year has attained finality. Admittedly the 1st year is the base assessment year from where the issue of depreciation is emanating. The question arises once the depreciation has been allowed

BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 263 or 147 of the Act by the revenue. Therefore we can safely presume that the claim of the depreciation of the assessee in the 1st year has attained finality. Admittedly the 1st year is the base assessment year from where the issue of depreciation is emanating. The question arises once the depreciation has been allowed

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 43 of the Act. The AO accordingly treated the subsidy received by the assessee as revenue receipt and added to the total income of the assessee. 60. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: 6.4 It is seen that addition made on account of sales