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

section 115JB of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee has been allowed excess depreciation of Rs. 2,75,00,917/- on the windmill, while computing the book profits for the relevant period. In the 263 proceedings, the assessee submitted that on the very said issue, the AO had raised query by letter dated 19-02-2012 at serial number 8

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

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

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

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,, 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

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-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

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

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

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