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

section 32(1) (earlier fifth proviso), which restricts depreciation in the case of amalgamation to the amount that would have been allowable had the ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 21 amalgamation not taken place. Thus, where the amalgamating company had claimed no depreciation on goodwill prior to amalgamation due to its non-existence, no depreciation could be claimed by the amalgamated

M/S. SURZLON GLOBAL SERVICES LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 67-68/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 M/S. Suzlon Global Services Limited, Principal Commissioner 5 Suzlon, Shrimali Society, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Near Shree Krishna Centre, Ahmedabad. Nr. Judges Bunglow Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aaics1406R

31-3-2016 for Rs. 0.855 crores. 4.2 Besides the goodwill acquired by M/s SSL from M/s SGSL as discussed above, there was unabsorbed depreciation of ₹ 724.46 crores on above goodwill in the books of M/s SGSL which was also added to the amount of goodwill in pursuance to the provision of explanation 2 to section

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

depreciation on the above (as per Para No.7) 10. Trade Mark Registration fee & Rs. 14,14,36,698 Patent Fee (as per Para No. 8) 11. Research & Development Rs. 109,74,61,000 (as per Para No. 9) 12.Disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act Rs.8,05,91,640/- Rs.234,23,50,734/- (as per Para No. 10) Assessed Business Income

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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

31,47,982/- in the immediately succeeding AY i.e., 2018-19 while calculating general depreciation allowance would mean that additional depreciation of 20% on assets put to use during the entire year ought to have been allowed in the year in which the assets are acquired or installed irrespective of the date of additions. (ii) In the entire sub-section

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

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

31,9857- towards depreciation claimed on Plant & Machinery. 1.2 The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in disallowing the claim of depreciation on the ground that appellant has not submitted documentary evidence like details of customers, bills of gas supplied, details of where the gas was supplied from and where it was supplied to, details of independent sections

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

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

31,9857- towards depreciation claimed on Plant & Machinery. 1.2 The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in disallowing the claim of depreciation on the ground that appellant has not submitted documentary evidence like details of customers, bills of gas supplied, details of where the gas was supplied from and where it was supplied to, details of independent sections

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 32(l)(iia) does not say that the year in which the additional depreciation has to be allowed. It simply says that the assessee is eligible for additional depreciation equal to 20% of the cost of the machinery provided the machinery or plant is acquired by the machinery or plant is acquired and installed after 31

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 32(l)(iia) does not say that the year in which the additional depreciation has to be allowed. It simply says that the assessee is eligible for additional depreciation equal to 20% of the cost of the machinery provided the machinery or plant is acquired by the machinery or plant is acquired and installed after 31

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 32(l)(iia) does not say that the year in which the additional depreciation has to be allowed. It simply says that the assessee is eligible for additional depreciation equal to 20% of the cost of the machinery provided the machinery or plant is acquired by the machinery or plant is acquired and installed after 31

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 allowance' in section 147 after the conditions for reassessment are satisfied, is only relatable to the preceding expression in clauses (a) and (b) viz., 'escaped assessment'. The term 'escaped assessment' includes both 'non- assessment' as well as 'under assessment'. Income is said to have 'escaped assessment' within the meaning of this section when it has not been charged

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 allowance' in section 147 after the conditions for reassessment are satisfied, is only relatable to the preceding expression in clauses (a) and (b) viz., 'escaped assessment'. The term 'escaped assessment' includes both 'non- assessment' as well as 'under assessment'. Income is said to have 'escaped assessment' within the meaning of this section when it has not been charged

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 397/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Dcit Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 532/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Acit, Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr Dr & Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 32(1)(ii) on this amount at 25 percent p.a. in its return of income for AY 2014-15 and all subsequent years by treating the same goodwill as an intangible asset. 3.20 During the year under consideration, the Assessee Company has claimed depreciation of Rs.80,97,963 at the rate of 25% on the opening written down value

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE PR. CIT-1,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Years : 2015-16 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., Pri. Commissioner Of Urja Sadan, Nana Varachha Road, Vs Income-Tax-1, Kapodara Char Rasta, Surat, Ahmedabad Guajrat-395006 Pan : Aabcd 8912 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R

31 taxmann.com 378 (Guj.), wherein it was held that the amendment to Section 234B made for the purpose to remove the ambiguity was required to be held as retrospective in nature. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 7 9. The learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the claim of the assessee for additional depreciation

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

31,406/- as a capital expenditure made by AO. c) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IC of the Act of Rs. 48,15,82,353/- by restricting the deduction under section 80IC of the Act to Rs.33,07,09,509/- as against Rs.81

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

31,406/- as a capital expenditure made by AO. c) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IC of the Act of Rs. 48,15,82,353/- by restricting the deduction under section 80IC of the Act to Rs.33,07,09,509/- as against Rs.81

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

31,406/- as a capital expenditure made by AO. c) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IC of the Act of Rs. 48,15,82,353/- by restricting the deduction under section 80IC of the Act to Rs.33,07,09,509/- as against Rs.81

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

31,406/- as a capital expenditure made by AO. c) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IC of the Act of Rs. 48,15,82,353/- by restricting the deduction under section 80IC of the Act to Rs.33,07,09,509/- as against Rs.81

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 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 3 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of depreciation on goodwill for Rs.17,27,50,337/- 4) In law and in facts and circumstances