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)

depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation of Rs.132,47,53,370/- u/s.32 of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in holding that the goodwill has to be taken at NIL cost in the hands of the appellant. 7. Both the lower authorities have

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)

depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation of Rs.132,47,53,370/- u/s.32 of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in holding that the goodwill has to be taken at NIL cost in the hands of the appellant. 7. Both the lower authorities have

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)

depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation of Rs.132,47,53,370/- u/s.32 of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in holding that the goodwill has to be taken at NIL cost in the hands of the appellant. 7. Both the lower authorities have

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)

depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation of Rs.132,47,53,370/- u/s.32 of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in holding that the goodwill has to be taken at NIL cost in the hands of the appellant. 7. Both the lower authorities have

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)

7. We reject the assessee's contention that the mode of receipt determines\nthe applicability of Explanation 10. The statutory liability retained by the\nassessee is equivalent to an inflow of funds, and thus, the benefit derived\nfrom it must be adjusted against the asset cost. Once the asset is merged into\nthe block of assets, its individual character

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 :

7. The DR argued that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s ruling in Welspun Steel Ltd. is ultimately based on the ratio laid down in P.J. Chemicals Ltd. and other pre-1999 cases, without analysing the impact of Explanation 10 to section 43(a) o. The AR further argued that Hon’ble Supreme Court’s ruling in P.J. Chemicals

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 :

7. The DR argued that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s ruling in Welspun Steel Ltd. is ultimately based on the ratio laid down in P.J. Chemicals Ltd. and other pre-1999 cases, without analysing the impact of Explanation 10 to section 43(a) o. The AR further argued that Hon’ble Supreme Court’s ruling in P.J. Chemicals

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 :

7. The DR argued that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s ruling in Welspun Steel Ltd. is ultimately based on the ratio laid down in P.J. Chemicals Ltd. and other pre-1999 cases, without analysing the impact of Explanation 10 to section 43(a) o. The AR further argued that Hon’ble Supreme Court’s ruling in P.J. Chemicals

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 :

7. The DR argued that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s ruling in Welspun Steel Ltd. is ultimately based on the ratio laid down in P.J. Chemicals Ltd. and other pre-1999 cases, without analysing the impact of Explanation 10 to section 43(a) o. The AR further argued that Hon’ble Supreme Court’s ruling in P.J. Chemicals

SAGARLAXMI AGRISEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2017-18 Sagarlaxmi Agriseeds Pvt Ltd Acit, Cir.4(1)(1) 206, Ashwamegh Avenue Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Mithakhali Garden Navrangpura Ahmedabad. Pan : Aawcs 7561 F (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Deepak R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dharnidas V.S., Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R

7 to section 43(1) and section 55 of the Act. This is not a case where there was an amalgamation of the companies. This is a case of outright purchase of the business of the proprietorship concern by the assessee company. The Ld. CIT(A), himself, in para 8.3 and 8.4 of the impugned order has observed that that

M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the order of the Ld

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

7 – Rs.144,45,49,407/- on which it had claimed deduction u/s.32AC of the Act @15% amounting to Rs.21,66,82,411/-. The assessee had stated the amount to be duly certified and reported in tax audit report by the statutory Auditor and had furnished the working of the same. It was also pointed out to us that vide letter

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)

255 ITR 273]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd (supra) has categorically stated that where the accounts are prepared in accordance with Companies Act and certified by the Auditor, then the assessing officer should not go beyond the net profit, except to the extent specifically provided under section 115JB of the Act observing as follows: “…the assessing

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)

255 ITR 273]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd (supra) has categorically stated that where the accounts are prepared in accordance with Companies Act and certified by the Auditor, then the assessing officer should not go beyond the net profit, except to the extent specifically provided under section 115JB of the Act observing as follows: “…the assessing

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

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

7. Capitalization of Interest I.T.A No. 1607 & 1533/Ahd/2016 & Ors. A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 25 Sabarmati Gas Limited vs. ACIT On perusal of P&L A/c audit report and details filed by the assessee it is found that during the year under consideration the assessee has made addition to its assets as under:- Before 6 months

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

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

7. Capitalization of Interest I.T.A No. 1607 & 1533/Ahd/2016 & Ors. A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 25 Sabarmati Gas Limited vs. ACIT On perusal of P&L A/c audit report and details filed by the assessee it is found that during the year under consideration the assessee has made addition to its assets as under:- Before 6 months

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

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