INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

depreciation of Goodwill without appreciating that goodwill is self-acquired asset, the actual cost of which in the hands of the amalgamated company is NIL, therefore, after amalgamation, the WDV of the same has also to be taken at NIL in the hands of the assessee company, in view of Explanation 26 to section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CLARIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 295/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 The D.C.I.T, M/S Claris Lifesciences Limited, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. Claris Corporate Hq, Ahmedabad. Near Parimal Rly. Crossing, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacc6366Q

26. It is true that section 50 is enacted with the object of denying multiple benefits to the owners of depreciable

M/S. SABARMATI GAS LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Sabarmati Gas Ltd. The Ld.Pr.Cit Plot No.907, Sector 21 Vs Ahmedabad-3. Gandhinagar 382 021 Pan : Aakcs 0110 N

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 26. Considering the admission of the ld.counsel for the assessee that the issue of tax at source on rent expenses was not examined by 16 the AO at all, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.Pr.CIT holding the assessment order erroneous on this count. 27. In view

OLYMPIC DECOR LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Olympic Décor Llp Pr.Commissioner Of 6, Patel Avenue, Nr.Gurudwara Vs Income Tax-3 Sg Highway, Bodakdev Ambawadi Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Adafs 2113 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ars : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

depreciation schedules under both Income Tax and Companies Act. The reconciliation was duly filed and accepted. There is no finding by the PCIT that the claim was factually incorrect or that any excess was demonstrable from the computation. There are several judicial precedents where it was held that where the AO has made inquiries and taken a view after considering

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

depreciation on goodwill and granting consequential relief. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 6 to 12 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Ground No. 13 – Allocation of Common Expenses while Computing Deduction under Sections 80-IC, 80-IE & 10AA 8. This ground relates to deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of allocation of common/indirect expenses to the eligible units

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, GURGAON

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

26,54,00,107/- 5.3 We now take up the Revenue’s ground challenging the deletion of disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. 5.4 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs.6,61,91,21,210/- on goodwill. This goodwill was stated to have arisen pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HARYANA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

26,54,00,107/- 5.3 We now take up the Revenue’s ground challenging the deletion of disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. 5.4 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs.6,61,91,21,210/- on goodwill. This goodwill was stated to have arisen pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HARYANA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

26,54,00,107/- 5.3 We now take up the Revenue’s ground challenging the deletion of disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. 5.4 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs.6,61,91,21,210/- on goodwill. This goodwill was stated to have arisen pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HARYANA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

26,54,00,107/- 5.3 We now take up the Revenue’s ground challenging the deletion of disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. 5.4 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs.6,61,91,21,210/- on goodwill. This goodwill was stated to have arisen pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

26,41,911/- u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act during the impugned year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13, on the assets which were put to use in A.Y.2011-12 for a period less than 182 days and therefore additional depreciation was calculated at 50% of the applicable rate during A.Y. 2011-12. The balance additional depreciation was claimed during

THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. KALPARATRU POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

26,41,911/- u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act during the impugned year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13, on the assets which were put to use in A.Y.2011-12 for a period less than 182 days and therefore additional depreciation was calculated at 50% of the applicable rate during A.Y. 2011-12. The balance additional depreciation was claimed during

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

26,41,911/- u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act during the impugned year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13, on the assets which were put to use in A.Y.2011-12 for a period less than 182 days and therefore additional depreciation was calculated at 50% of the applicable rate during A.Y. 2011-12. The balance additional depreciation was claimed during

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation under the provisions of section 32 of the Act. In holding so we draw support and ITA Nos.722,218&1306/Ahd/2014 & ITA No. 1345/Ahd/2015 A.Ys. 2000-01&2007-08 to 2009-10 26

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation under the provisions of section 32 of the Act. In holding so we draw support and ITA Nos.722,218&1306/Ahd/2014 & ITA No. 1345/Ahd/2015 A.Ys. 2000-01&2007-08 to 2009-10 26

MAXXIS RUBBER INDIA PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. A working of the total depreciation charged during the year under consideration is tabulated as under:- Block of assets Plant and Machinery S.No. 15 30 40 Rate (%) (i) (ii) (iii) 3a Written down value on the first day 14,19,66,02,772 - of previous year 3b Written down value on the first

MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Section 32 of the Act clearly provides for depreciation to be allowed on WDV of assets as under: ITA No. 1017/Ahd/2024 [Makson Pharmaceuticals (India) Private Limited vs. PCIT] A.Y. 2018-19 - 20 – “32. (1) In respect of depreciation of— (i) buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets; (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other

JT. CTI (OSD), CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 55: Meaning of 'Cost of Acquisition' in case of Goodwill of Business or Profession has been amended to provide that • in case it is acquired from a previous owner, the cost would be the amount of purchase price paid. • in case it is acquired as a result of gift, amalgamation etc. and goodwill was acquired by previous owner, cost

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 55: Meaning of 'Cost of Acquisition' in case of Goodwill of Business or Profession has been amended to provide that • in case it is acquired from a previous owner, the cost would be the amount of purchase price paid. • in case it is acquired as a result of gift, amalgamation etc. and goodwill was acquired by previous owner, cost

THE DCIT, CIR-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 55: Meaning of 'Cost of Acquisition' in case of Goodwill of Business or Profession has been amended to provide that • in case it is acquired from a previous owner, the cost would be the amount of purchase price paid. • in case it is acquired as a result of gift, amalgamation etc. and goodwill was acquired by previous owner, cost