THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

4,000 to AE, as well as geographical factors and FAR Analysis. (c) Geographical factors : As Above (1). (d) Regularity of transaction : As above (1). 16 Tetra ButyleAmm. 13,69,800 (a) FAR Analysis : As Above. Hy. (b) Quantity Factor : The instances taken by the ld. TPO has summarised as under : Country Qty. Avg. Rate Germany 500 743.52 Japan

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

4,000 to AE, as well as geographical factors and FAR Analysis. (c) Geographical factors : As Above (1). (d) Regularity of transaction : As above (1). 16 Tetra ButyleAmm. 13,69,800 (a) FAR Analysis : As Above. Hy. (b) Quantity Factor : The instances taken by the ld. TPO has summarised as under : Country Qty. Avg. Rate Germany 500 743.52 Japan

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

4,000 to AE, as well as geographical factors and FAR Analysis. (c) Geographical factors : As Above (1). (d) Regularity of transaction : As above (1). 16 Tetra ButyleAmm. 13,69,800 (a) FAR Analysis : As Above. Hy. (b) Quantity Factor : The instances taken by the ld. TPO has summarised as under : Country Qty. Avg. Rate Germany 500 743.52 Japan

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result, both the revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 143(3) of the Act arising out of the order dated 30.12.2015 for A.Y. 2012-13. Since both the appeals relate to same assessee those are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. ITA Nos.1832 & 1833/Ahd/2016 DCIT vs. Ranjit Projects pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year – 2012-13 & 2013-14 ITA No.1832/Ahd/2016

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result, both the revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 143(3) of the Act arising out of the order dated 30.12.2015 for A.Y. 2012-13. Since both the appeals relate to same assessee those are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. ITA Nos.1832 & 1833/Ahd/2016 DCIT vs. Ranjit Projects pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year – 2012-13 & 2013-14 ITA No.1832/Ahd/2016

ANANTA PROCON PRIVATE LIMITED,UNJHA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE PATAN, PATAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.349/Ahd/2022 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.870/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Ananta Procon Private Limited, The A.C.I.T, C-146, Gunj Bazar, Vs. Circle Patan, Unjha-384170, Patan. Gujarat

255/-. On the basis of the assessment order and in view of the details and documents uploaded by the appellant, I am of considered opinion that the addition made by the Id. AO deserves to be sustained. Accordingly, the ground of appeal on this is dismissed and not allowed. 7. Regarding addition of Rs. 29,48,465/-, it is noticed

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

4,20,25,000/- and claimed depreciation @ 80% on the same under the Income Tax Act. The PCIT was of the view that depreciation claimed @ 80% by the assessee while computing books profits under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act is not permissible and instead, the assessee should have claimed depreciation @ 15.33% as per the Companies

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

255, where it was held as under: The provisions of sections 251 and 254(1) as well as the various judicial pronouncements make it clear that the powers of the AAC are wider than those of the Tribunal. The AAC, while hearing an appeal under section 251 can examine all matters covered by the assessment order and correct the assessment

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. M/S. GUJARAT ALKALIES & CHEMICALS LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

255 ITR 273 wherein it was held as under: “Therefore, the Assessing Officer while computing the income under section 115J has only the power of examining whether the books of account are certified by the authorities under the Companies Act as having been properly maintained in accordance with the Companies Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter has limited power of making

GUJARAT ALKALIES AND CHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

255 ITR 273 wherein it was held as under: “Therefore, the Assessing Officer while computing the income under section 115J has only the power of examining whether the books of account are certified by the authorities under the Companies Act as having been properly maintained in accordance with the Companies Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter has limited power of making

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

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

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