M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

256,519 222,675 33,844 Residential Building 2 Depr. On Data 3,422,521/- 2,970,974 451,547 Processing Machines 3 Depr. On Motor 1,844,880 1,601,477 243,403 cars 4 Advertisement 20,678,311 17,950,137 2,728,174 Expenses 5 Dep. On Account of SAP-R/3 Cost (60% of Rs.3

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

256,519 222,675 33,844 Residential Building 2 Depr. On Data 3,422,521/- 2,970,974 451,547 Processing Machines 3 Depr. On Motor 1,844,880 1,601,477 243,403 cars 4 Advertisement 20,678,311 17,950,137 2,728,174 Expenses 5 Dep. On Account of SAP-R/3 Cost (60% of Rs.3

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

256,519 222,675 33,844 Residential Building 2 Depr. On Data 3,422,521/- 2,970,974 451,547 Processing Machines 3 Depr. On Motor 1,844,880 1,601,477 243,403 cars 4 Advertisement 20,678,311 17,950,137 2,728,174 Expenses 5 Dep. On Account of SAP-R/3 Cost (60% of Rs.3

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),(TPO), BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

256,519 222,675 33,844 Residential Building 2 Depr. On Data 3,422,521/- 2,970,974 451,547 Processing Machines 3 Depr. On Motor 1,844,880 1,601,477 243,403 cars 4 Advertisement 20,678,311 17,950,137 2,728,174 Expenses 5 Dep. On Account of SAP-R/3 Cost (60% of Rs.3

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

1), it is deemed that it has deducted and paid the tax on such sums on the date of filing of return of income by the concerned payee as referred in the above stated proviso. The co-ordinate bench as well as hon’ble Delhi high court have accordingly applied the above stated proviso with retrospective effect by holding

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

1), it is deemed that it has deducted and paid the tax on such sums on the date of filing of return of income by the concerned payee as referred in the above stated proviso. The co-ordinate bench as well as hon’ble Delhi high court have accordingly applied the above stated proviso with retrospective effect by holding

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

1), it is deemed that it has deducted and paid the tax on such sums on the date of filing of return of income by the concerned payee as referred in the above stated proviso. The co-ordinate bench as well as hon’ble Delhi high court have accordingly applied the above stated proviso with retrospective effect by holding

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

256(2) to the High Court, the High Court held that the issue was already covered by the decision of the High Court in C.I.T. Vs A.V.M. Limited [146 ITR 355]. When the matter was taken to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court found that there was a conflict of decisions among various High Courts. Some High Courts had taken

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

256(2) to the High Court, the High Court held that the issue was already covered by the decision of the High Court in C.I.T. Vs A.V.M. Limited [146 ITR 355]. When the matter was taken to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court found that there was a conflict of decisions among various High Courts. Some High Courts had taken

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

256(2) to the High Court, the High Court held that the issue was already covered by the decision of the High Court in C.I.T. Vs A.V.M. Limited [146 ITR 355]. When the matter was taken to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court found that there was a conflict of decisions among various High Courts. Some High Courts had taken

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

256(2) to the High Court, the High Court held that the issue was already covered by the decision of the High Court in C.I.T. Vs A.V.M. Limited [146 ITR 355]. When the matter was taken to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court found that there was a conflict of decisions among various High Courts. Some High Courts had taken

SUMANGAL GLASS PVT. LTD.,BHACHAU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2636/Ahd/2017 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Sumangal Glass Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, Plot No.617/1-618-620, Vs. Circle-4(1)(1), Nh-8A,Po.Samakhiyari Ahmedabad (Piprapati), Bhachau Taluka, Samakhiyari-370150. Pan: Aaics6992G

256 – 18,68,360) only. Thus, the AO disallowed the excess deduction claimed by the assessee for Rs. 63,82,896/- and added to the total income of the assessee. The AO in effect has made the addition of Rs. 1,44,21,556/- (80,38,660 + 63,82,896) to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved assessee

GMM PFAULDER LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.839/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Gmm Pfaulder Ltd. The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, B-Jadav Chambers Ahmedabad-1 V/S. Navrangpura H.O. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ashram Road Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcg 0563 A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-1 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Pr. Cit” For Short] Dated 07/03/2025 Passed In Exercise Of His Revisionary Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020- 21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Gmm Pfaulder Ltd. Vs. Pcit Asst. Year : 2020-21 2

1,48,30,256/- on Goodwill: 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in contending that the depreciation amounting to Rs.1,48,30,256 on Goodwill acquired in Industrial Mixing Solution Division from Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd on slum sale basis, is not allowable under section

ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1817/Ahd/2016 2012-13 Arvind Lifestyle Brands D.C.I.T, Ltd., Circle-1(1)(2), Arvind Mills Premises, Ahmedabad. Naroda Road, Ahmedabad-380025. Pan No. Aaach7252A 2. 2056/Ahd/2016 2012-13 D.C.I.T, Arvind Lifestyle Circle-1(1)(2), Brands Ltd., Ahmedabad. 3. 2377/Ahd/2017 2013-14 Arvind Lifestyle Brands D.C.I.T, Ltd., Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad. 4. 2618/Ahd/2017 2014-15 Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ito Ward-1(1)(3) Ltd., Ahmedabad

depreciation on data processing equipments at the rate of 60% for the reasons as discussed above. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the learned CIT (A). Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 27. The Learned DR at the time of hearing has not brought anything on record contrary

ABDULVAHED A. SHEIKH, LEGAL HEIROF LATE SMT. SARIFABEN BIKHUBHAI SHEK,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

depreciation allowance have been computed. The formation of the required opinion by the ITO is a condition precedent. Without formation of such an opinion he will not have jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under s. 34(1)(a). The fulfilment of this condition is not a mere formality but it is mandatory. The failure to fulfil that condition would vitiate

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Depreciation - 6,377 - - - 8,044 at higher rate Disallowance 2,96,005 67,97,562 - - - - u/s 40(a)(i) Deduction - - u/s 43B - - - 7,19,293 U/s 40A(3) - - - - - 4,45,971 U/s 40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Depreciation - 6,377 - - - 8,044 at higher rate Disallowance 2,96,005 67,97,562 - - - - u/s 40(a)(i) Deduction - - u/s 43B - - - 7,19,293 U/s 40A(3) - - - - - 4,45,971 U/s 40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Depreciation - 6,377 - - - 8,044 at higher rate Disallowance 2,96,005 67,97,562 - - - - u/s 40(a)(i) Deduction - - u/s 43B - - - 7,19,293 U/s 40A(3) - - - - - 4,45,971 U/s 40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before