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 :

8. During the course of hearing before us, the AR contended that in the case of Kinfra Export Promotion Industrial Parks Ltd., the Hon’ble Kerala High Court had held that proportionate reduction of the subsidy from the cost of the asset could be against the assets which received the financial assistance under ASIDE and therefore only so much

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 :

8. During the course of hearing before us, the AR contended that in the case of Kinfra Export Promotion Industrial Parks Ltd., the Hon’ble Kerala High Court had held that proportionate reduction of the subsidy from the cost of the asset could be against the assets which received the financial assistance under ASIDE and therefore only so much

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 :

8. During the course of hearing before us, the AR contended that in the case of Kinfra Export Promotion Industrial Parks Ltd., the Hon’ble Kerala High Court had held that proportionate reduction of the subsidy from the cost of the asset could be against the assets which received the financial assistance under ASIDE and therefore only so much

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)

8. We also find strength in the observations made by the Co-ordiante\nBench in its order in ITA No. 1382 and 2007/Ahd/2007, dated 21.12.2011,\nwhere it was held that a subsidy received for fixed assets must be deducted\nfrom the actual cost of fixed assets, and depreciation must be recalculated\naccordingly. The assessee had contended that the sales

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)

255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.” The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue.” 21. Apart from the above, we have a binding precedent

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)

255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.” The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue.” 21. Apart from the above, we have a binding precedent

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)

255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.” The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue.” 21. Apart from the above, we have a binding precedent

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)

255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.” The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue.” 21. Apart from the above, we have a binding precedent

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

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 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

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

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

8% approx can be attributable to WIP. As against which assessee has only capitalised Rs, 1,25,78,548/-. Therefore remaining amount of Rs. 1,76,82,6127- is required to be capitalised. In view of the above discussion interest of Rs. 1,76,82,612/- is disallowed. However it is allowed to be added in the cost

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

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

8% approx can be attributable to WIP. As against which assessee has only capitalised Rs, 1,25,78,548/-. Therefore remaining amount of Rs. 1,76,82,6127- is required to be capitalised. In view of the above discussion interest of Rs. 1,76,82,612/- is disallowed. However it is allowed to be added in the cost

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)

8 – hold, of the AO having taken a plausible view while allowing assesses claim of deduction u/s 32AC of the Act, when clearly he had not sought any clarification from the assessee on the admitted discrepancy in the amount of fixed assets certified by the tax auditor as acquired by the assessee during the year and that on which deduction

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarn.K. Proteins Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. 7Th Floor, Popular House, Central Circle-1(2) Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacn 9377 N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ar Revenue By: Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr & Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2025 & 19.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.06.2025

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The grounds of appeal are as follows:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation on motor