ABDULVAHED A. SHEIKH, LEGAL HEIROF LATE SMT. SARIFABEN BIKHUBHAI SHEK,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

depreciation allowance have been computed. The formation of the required opinion by the ITO is a condition precedent. Without formation of such an opinion he will not have jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under s. 34(1)(a). The fulfilment of this condition is not a mere formality but it is mandatory. The failure to fulfil that condition would vitiate

KANSARA POPATLAL TRIBHUVAN METAL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground number 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

depreciation at rates provided under Income-tax Rules, action of Assessing Officer in redrawing profit and loss account and adopting rates prescribed under Companies Act, was totally unauthorized. 6.1 In view of the various decisions cited above, we are of the considered view that in the instant facts, PCIT erred in facts and law in holding that the assessment order

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation disallowance of Rs.68,00,471/-. (6) The CIT(A)has erred in law and in facts in deleting he addition of Rs.I,72,59,614/- made on account of unutilized CENVAT credits. (7) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in adjustment of Rs. 1,15, I5,902/- u/s 1 I5JB of the Act on account

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation disallowance of Rs.68,00,471/-. (6) The CIT(A)has erred in law and in facts in deleting he addition of Rs.I,72,59,614/- made on account of unutilized CENVAT credits. (7) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in adjustment of Rs. 1,15, I5,902/- u/s 1 I5JB of the Act on account

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation disallowance of Rs.68,00,471/-. (6) The CIT(A)has erred in law and in facts in deleting he addition of Rs.I,72,59,614/- made on account of unutilized CENVAT credits. (7) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in adjustment of Rs. 1,15, I5,902/- u/s 1 I5JB of the Act on account

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation disallowance of Rs.68,00,471/-. (6) The CIT(A)has erred in law and in facts in deleting he addition of Rs.I,72,59,614/- made on account of unutilized CENVAT credits. (7) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in adjustment of Rs. 1,15, I5,902/- u/s 1 I5JB of the Act on account

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Depreciation on Goodwill in pursuant to explanation to section 32(1),43(1) and 43(6) to the tune of Rs.1,13,10,975/-under normal provisions of the Act:- 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs 1,13,10,975/- made

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

254 held that while determining the ALP the rate charged by the bank or financial institution cannot be taken as comparable. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Court reads as under: In the present case, it is assessee-company that is issuing corporate guarantee to the effect that if the subsidiary AE does not repay loan availed

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

254 of the act in the case Reclamation Weilding Ltd. accepted the burning loss in excess of 10%. The action of the Assessing Officer in restricting the burning loss @ 2% in a general manner is not justified. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Therefore

AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

254 of the act in the case Reclamation Weilding Ltd. accepted the burning loss in excess of 10%. The action of the Assessing Officer in restricting the burning loss @ 2% in a general manner is not justified. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Therefore

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

2(11): Definition of 'Block of Assets' has been amended to specifically provide that 'Goodwill of a Business or Profession' shall not form part of block of assets comprising of 'Intangible Assets'.  Section 32(1)(ii): 'Goodwill of a Business or Profession' has been specifically excluded from the definition of assets on which depreciation shall be calculated.  Explanation

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

2(11): Definition of 'Block of Assets' has been amended to specifically provide that 'Goodwill of a Business or Profession' shall not form part of block of assets comprising of 'Intangible Assets'.  Section 32(1)(ii): 'Goodwill of a Business or Profession' has been specifically excluded from the definition of assets on which depreciation shall be calculated.  Explanation

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

2(11): Definition of 'Block of Assets' has been amended to specifically provide that 'Goodwill of a Business or Profession' shall not form part of block of assets comprising of 'Intangible Assets'.  Section 32(1)(ii): 'Goodwill of a Business or Profession' has been specifically excluded from the definition of assets on which depreciation shall be calculated.  Explanation

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

2(11): Definition of 'Block of Assets' has been amended to specifically provide that 'Goodwill of a Business or Profession' shall not form part of block of assets comprising of 'Intangible Assets'.  Section 32(1)(ii): 'Goodwill of a Business or Profession' has been specifically excluded from the definition of assets on which depreciation shall be calculated.  Explanation

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

depreciation of Rs. 2,66,83,892/-. 13.1. Ground of appeal no. 2 is dismissed. 14. Ground no. 3 of the assessee reads as under: 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 14,00,410/- computed by A.O. as per Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A(2) of the Act. Both the lower

TORRENT ENERGY LIMITED (NOW MERGED WITH TORRENT POWER LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Torrent Energy Limited The Acit, Cir.4(1)(1) (Now Merged With Torrent Power Ltd) Ahmedabad. Samanvay, 600, Tapovan Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Pan : Aacct 8570 B (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ar : Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

254 of the Act. 2 Facts of the Case 2. The brief facts of the case, as emanating from the records, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of generation and distribution of electricity. During the relevant previous year, the assessee had acquired leasehold rights over land admeasuring 65,434.33 square meters situated at Dahej

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961('the Act') and confirmed an upward TP adjustment amounting to INR 16,79,093 on account of liaison services provided by Zydus Japan to the Appellant. (b) That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs.18

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) on such capital expenditure disallowed. 5. Re: Disallowance on account of alleged Bogus Purchases Rs. 51.712/- : 5.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in disallowing purchases made from M/s M.R. Corporation and M/s Savita International as bogus purchases based