SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

4. Without prejudice to the above, quantification of disallowance is excessive and erroneous. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation of Rs.132,47,53,370/- u/s.32

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

4. Without prejudice to the above, quantification of disallowance is excessive and erroneous. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation of Rs.132,47,53,370/- u/s.32

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

4. Without prejudice to the above, quantification of disallowance is excessive and erroneous. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation of Rs.132,47,53,370/- u/s.32

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

4. Without prejudice to the above, quantification of disallowance is excessive and erroneous. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation of Rs.132,47,53,370/- u/s.32

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1),, VADODARA vs. MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER &\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

4. Regarding the direction of the Co-ordinate Bench to reduce the\nsubsidy from the cost of fixed assets, the AR submitted that this direction\nwould not adversely affect the assessee's case. The sales tax subsidy was not\ngranted for specific fixed assets and, therefore, should not be reduced from\nthe cost of assets for depreciation purposes

M/S. MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(1),, BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

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

4. The Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee contended that the incentive received by the assessee in the form of sales tax deferment does not fall within the ambit of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act. The AR submitted that Explanation 10 requires a direct or indirect nexus between the subsidy and the cost of acquisition

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 :

4. The Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee contended that the incentive received by the assessee in the form of sales tax deferment does not fall within the ambit of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act. The AR submitted that Explanation 10 requires a direct or indirect nexus between the subsidy and the cost of acquisition

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 :

4. The Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee contended that the incentive received by the assessee in the form of sales tax deferment does not fall within the ambit of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act. The AR submitted that Explanation 10 requires a direct or indirect nexus between the subsidy and the cost of acquisition

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 :

4. The Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee contended that the incentive received by the assessee in the form of sales tax deferment does not fall within the ambit of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act. The AR submitted that Explanation 10 requires a direct or indirect nexus between the subsidy and the cost of acquisition

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

4 of the Appeal relates to addition of the amortization of Intangibles of Rs.1523,97,50,000/- while computing book profits under section 115JB. The brief facts of the case are that Domestic Formulation Unit (DFU) of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (SPIL) has been Spun off/ transferred to the assessee company in term of Scheme of Arrangement approved

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

4 of the Appeal relates to addition of the amortization of Intangibles of Rs.1523,97,50,000/- while computing book profits under section 115JB. The brief facts of the case are that Domestic Formulation Unit (DFU) of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (SPIL) has been Spun off/ transferred to the assessee company in term of Scheme of Arrangement approved

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

255 ITR 273 (2002)]. 3.5 Without Prejudice to the above, the said remuneration of Rs. 67,25,69,731/- from SPS has been duly accounted and considered in determining book profits for AY 2012-13 and has already been subjected to addition in that year and hence, no addition in this regard ought to be made in the current year

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

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

255 ITR 273 (2002)]. 3.5 Without Prejudice to the above, the said remuneration of Rs. 67,25,69,731/- from SPS has been duly accounted and considered in determining book profits for AY 2012-13 and has already been subjected to addition in that year and hence, no addition in this regard ought to be made in the current year

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

255 ITR 273 (2002)]. 3.5 Without Prejudice to the above, the said remuneration of Rs. 67,25,69,731/- from SPS has been duly accounted and considered in determining book profits for AY 2012-13 and has already been subjected to addition in that year and hence, no addition in this regard ought to be made in the current year

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

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

255 ITR 273 (2002)]. 3.5 Without Prejudice to the above, the said remuneration of Rs. 67,25,69,731/- from SPS has been duly accounted and considered in determining book profits for AY 2012-13 and has already been subjected to addition in that year and hence, no addition in this regard ought to be made in the current year

SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

4 is allowed. 40. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that besides the fact that the assessee had demonstrated the capitalization of all interest pertaining to interest bearing funds utilized for CWIP and the Ld. A.O. without giving any reasons has adopted an arbitrary method for calculating the interest pertaining to CWIP, the ld. Counsel contended that

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

4 is allowed. 40. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that besides the fact that the assessee had demonstrated the capitalization of all interest pertaining to interest bearing funds utilized for CWIP and the Ld. A.O. without giving any reasons has adopted an arbitrary method for calculating the interest pertaining to CWIP, the ld. Counsel contended that

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,, BARODA

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

4 relates to depreciation on building used for Managing Director’s residence. Ld AR submitted that as per the depreciation chart in the tax audit report, an addition of Rs.87,27,750/- on account of GIPCL House under the head factory building. The assessee claimed MD’s house is residence-cum- ITA Nos.1770/Ahd/2012 & Ors. (Gujarat Industrial Power Co. Ltd. ) office