THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, VADODARA vs. MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

253 (SC). 3. During the course of hearing the Departmental Representative (DR) made a detailed submission before us, focusing on the applicability of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the correct computation of book profits under Section 115JB of the Act. 3.1. On this background, we now first deal with Revenue’s Grounds

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, VADODARA vs. M/S. MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

253 (SC). 3. During the course of hearing the Departmental Representative (DR) made a detailed submission before us, focusing on the applicability of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the correct computation of book profits under Section 115JB of the Act. 3.1. On this background, we now first deal with Revenue’s Grounds

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, VADODARA vs. M/S. MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

253 (SC). 3. During the course of hearing the Departmental Representative (DR) made a detailed submission before us, focusing on the applicability of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the correct computation of book profits under Section 115JB of the Act. 3.1. On this background, we now first deal with Revenue’s Grounds

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

1,71,000/- under section\n80GGB. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this issue, and the\nground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed.\nIssue – 7 – Diallowance of Depreciation on Motor Cars amounting to Rs.\n9,00,100/- for A.Y. 2013-14\n78. Ground Nos. 7 and 8 of the Revenue's appeal relate to the deletion

NIRMA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1) NOW DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nirma Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-380 009 Circle-3(1)(1), Pan : Aaacn 5350 K Ahmedabad-380009 अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 10.04.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Follows:-

Depreciation is withdrawn assessed Normal at Rs.26.55 crores Book Profits at Rs.391.41 crores Tax paid: Rs.79.42 crores Tax payable: Rs.79.14 crores Refund due Rs.28.61 lakhs. Computation now gives full TDS credit, But 244A interest is not calculated although agreed to in order 11.06:2018 34-35 Rectification application by Assessee to correct error in order of 15.03.2018 and 21.09.2017 1

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

253 ITR 749) for the proposition that for the purpose\nof section 32, registration in the assessee's own name is not mandatory if\nbeneficial ownership and business use are established.\n80.\nOn this issue, the learned AR placed reliance on the findings of the\nlearned CIT(A), whereas the learned DR supported the order of the\nAssessing Officer

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

253 ITR 749) for the proposition that for the purpose\nof section 32, registration in the assessee's own name is not mandatory if\nbeneficial ownership and business use are established.\n80.\nOn this issue, the learned AR placed reliance on the findings of the\nlearned CIT(A), whereas the learned DR supported the order of the\nAssessing Officer

ARUN GOPILAL SAMNANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2023-24 Arun Gopilal Samnani The I.T.O., Ward-5(3)(1) 7, Bank Of Baroda Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. P.T. College Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aywps 2887 D Assessment Year :2023-24 Bhargavkumarparsottambh The I.T.O., Ward-1(2)(1) Ai Patel-Huf Vs Ahmedabad. B/301, 3Rd Floor Shree Saran-2 Opp: Anand Niketan School Thaltej, Ahmedabad 380089. Pan : Aalhb 2685 R

253(6) of the Act, the case of the assessee fell under clause (d) and the assessee therefore, was required to pay filing fees of only Rs.500/- which it had duly deposited. 5. Ld. DR was unable to contradict the contentions of the assessee as above either with respect to the provision of law or the fact of the case

BHARGAVKUMAR PARSOTTAMBHAI PATEL HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2023-24 Arun Gopilal Samnani The I.T.O., Ward-5(3)(1) 7, Bank Of Baroda Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. P.T. College Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aywps 2887 D Assessment Year :2023-24 Bhargavkumarparsottambh The I.T.O., Ward-1(2)(1) Ai Patel-Huf Vs Ahmedabad. B/301, 3Rd Floor Shree Saran-2 Opp: Anand Niketan School Thaltej, Ahmedabad 380089. Pan : Aalhb 2685 R

253(6) of the Act, the case of the assessee fell under clause (d) and the assessee therefore, was required to pay filing fees of only Rs.500/- which it had duly deposited. 5. Ld. DR was unable to contradict the contentions of the assessee as above either with respect to the provision of law or the fact of the case

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

253 (Ahmedabad) 10. At this juncture, Ld. Counsel for the assessee was asked at bar to demonstrate with evidence as to how the loan given in the present case would qualify as quasi capital and or given for commercial expediency of the assessee as were the facts in the case of Micro Inks Ltd. (supra) referred

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

253 (Ahmedabad) 10. At this juncture, Ld. Counsel for the assessee was asked at bar to demonstrate with evidence as to how the loan given in the present case would qualify as quasi capital and or given for commercial expediency of the assessee as were the facts in the case of Micro Inks Ltd. (supra) referred

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

253 (Ahmedabad) 10. At this juncture, Ld. Counsel for the assessee was asked at bar to demonstrate with evidence as to how the loan given in the present case would qualify as quasi capital and or given for commercial expediency of the assessee as were the facts in the case of Micro Inks Ltd. (supra) referred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED, VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1596/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

depreciation. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: i) “Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in deleting the Addition on account of Extraordinary items amounting

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPN. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1596/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

depreciation. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: i) “Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in deleting the Addition on account of Extraordinary items amounting

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. KANSARA POPATLAL TRIBHOVANDAS METAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the Cross

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1. The C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the enhancement of book profit by the amount of Rs.1,82,82,237/- being the alleged excessive claim of depreciation without appreciating the facts of the case properly. 2. The C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in law in placing reliance on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case

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

1 Zao Torrent Pharma 20,51,66,850/- 08-08-2012 28-03-2013 2 Zao Torrent Pharma 15,19,72,500/- 16-11-2011 18-05-2012 55.1 The TPO found that as per the provision of FEMA 1999 and RBI master circular No. 15/2014-15 dated 01-07-2014, the process of allotment of shares/equity instrument shall be completed

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an 46[undertaking], any machinery or plant

KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.(OSD),CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an 46[undertaking], any machinery or plant