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)

depreciation. The proviso to Explanation 10\nclarifies that even if the subsidy is not directly linked to a specific asset, it\nmust still be proportionately allocated and deducted from the total asset cost.\nITA No.784/Ahd/2013 & four other appeals by Revenue\nM/s.Munjal Auto Industries Ltd. vs. ITO/DCIT\nAsst. Years: 2003-04 to 2006-07\n8\n4.\nThe Authorised Representative

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 :

depreciation. The proviso to Explanation 10 clarifies that even if the subsidy is not directly linked to a specific asset, it must still be proportionately allocated and deducted from the total asset cost. ITA No.784/Ahd/2013 & four other appeals by Revenue M/s.Munjal Auto Industries Ltd. vs. ITO/DCIT Asst. Years : 2003-04 to 2006-07 4. The Authorised Representative

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 :

depreciation. The proviso to Explanation 10 clarifies that even if the subsidy is not directly linked to a specific asset, it must still be proportionately allocated and deducted from the total asset cost. ITA No.784/Ahd/2013 & four other appeals by Revenue M/s.Munjal Auto Industries Ltd. vs. ITO/DCIT Asst. Years : 2003-04 to 2006-07 4. The Authorised Representative

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 :

depreciation. The proviso to Explanation 10 clarifies that even if the subsidy is not directly linked to a specific asset, it must still be proportionately allocated and deducted from the total asset cost. ITA No.784/Ahd/2013 & four other appeals by Revenue M/s.Munjal Auto Industries Ltd. vs. ITO/DCIT Asst. Years : 2003-04 to 2006-07 4. The Authorised Representative

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 :

depreciation. The proviso to Explanation 10 clarifies that even if the subsidy is not directly linked to a specific asset, it must still be proportionately allocated and deducted from the total asset cost. ITA No.784/Ahd/2013 & four other appeals by Revenue M/s.Munjal Auto Industries Ltd. vs. ITO/DCIT Asst. Years : 2003-04 to 2006-07 4. The Authorised Representative

THE DCIT ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ),, AHMEDABAD vs. BLACK PEARL SERVICES LIMITED, G.S.E.C. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

section 44BB begin with the non-obstinate clause; therefore the assessee cannot claim the deduction on account of brought forward losses and the depreciation if the income is offered under presumption basis. The Ld. DR in support of his contention vehemently relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Schlumber berger

THE DCIT ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ),, AHMEDABAD vs. BLACK PEARL SERVICES LIMITED, G.S.E.C. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

section 44BB begin with the non-obstinate clause; therefore the assessee cannot claim the deduction on account of brought forward losses and the depreciation if the income is offered under presumption basis. The Ld. DR in support of his contention vehemently relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Schlumber berger

THE DCIT ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ),, AHMEDABAD vs. BLACK PEARL SERVICES LIMITED, G.S.E.C. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

section 44BB begin with the non-obstinate clause; therefore the assessee cannot claim the deduction on account of brought forward losses and the depreciation if the income is offered under presumption basis. The Ld. DR in support of his contention vehemently relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Schlumber berger

M/S. SHILP GRAVURES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation. However, the plant & machinery in previous assessment year was put to use for less than 180 days therefore the assessee claimed only 50% of such additional claim in the immediate previous year and remaining 50% claimed in the year under consideration. The claim made in previous assessment year for 50% amount has been allowed therefore remaining 50% should also

SHRI HIREN RAMESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(2)(7), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1880/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Hiren Rameshbhai Patel, I.T.O., Mehta Lodha & Co., Vs. Ward-3(2)(7), Chartered Accountants, Ahmedabad. 105, Sakar-I, Near Gandhigram, Railway Station, Off. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Abypp8084C

section 264 and another on statutory allowability of depreciation. The income has to be taxed correctly in respective hands by the AO and to my mind

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,), BARODA

Section 264 revision. The CIT-II, Baroda in his order dated 28.12.2011 upheld its case treating the above two projects to be eligible for the impugned deduction. The same has attained finality as on date. The CIT(A)’s order under challenge in para 10.3 page 58 takes due note thereof in accepting assessee’s arguments. We therefore adopt consistency

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

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-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AUSOM ENTERPRISE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 857/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

depreciation of 10A Units or non 10A Units can be set off against the profits of another 10A Units of the assessee. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of calculation of deduction under section 10AA it has to be computed prior to set off of these unabsorbed deprecation, brought forward loss of other units. Relevant

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AUSOM ENTERPRISE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 857/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

depreciation of 10A Units or non 10A Units can be set off against the profits of another 10A Units of the assessee. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of calculation of deduction under section 10AA it has to be computed prior to set off of these unabsorbed deprecation, brought forward loss of other units. Relevant

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AUSOM ENTERPRISE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 857/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

depreciation of 10A Units or non 10A Units can be set off against the profits of another 10A Units of the assessee. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of calculation of deduction under section 10AA it has to be computed prior to set off of these unabsorbed deprecation, brought forward loss of other units. Relevant

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

depreciation thereon. (10) The CIT(A) has erred in facts and law in directing the AO to allow additional claims without appreciating that such claims have not emanated from the assessment order. (11) The CIT(A) has erred in facts and law in deleting the product registration expenses of Rs. 1,76,84,264/- which are capital in nature