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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation on such plant and machinery has been claimed by the assessee company during the year under consideration i.e. the FY 2006-07 relevant to this assessment year 2007-08. A bare reading of clause (iia) of section 32(1

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

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act allowing

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 32(1) is excluded from availing additional depreciation. Option given under Rule 5(1) of IT for units generating electricity is for depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 32(1) is excluded from availing additional depreciation. Option given under Rule 5(1) of IT for units generating electricity is for depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

iia) of sub-section 1 of Section 32 of the Act. Clause (u) of subsection 1 of Section 32 of the Act recognizes the depreciation

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

iia) of sub-section 1 of Section 32 of the Act. Clause (u) of subsection 1 of Section 32 of the Act recognizes the depreciation

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,29,83,978/- as per Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee submitted

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,29,83,978/- as per Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee submitted

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,29,83,978/- as per Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee submitted

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,29,83,978/- as per Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee submitted

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,29,83,978/- as per Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee submitted

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,29,83,978/- as per Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee submitted

ASIAN OILFIELD SERVICES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble&

32(1)(iia) of the Act and therefore the assessee was rightly eligible for additional depreciation on the impugned machinery and plant used for the purpose of the business. 22 ITA.No. 144/AHD/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10) Asian Oilfield Services Limited 31. The relevant provisions of section

ASIAN OILFIELD SERVICE LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble&

32(1)(iia) of the Act and therefore the assessee was rightly eligible for additional depreciation on the impugned machinery and plant used for the purpose of the business. 22 ITA.No. 144/AHD/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10) Asian Oilfield Services Limited 31. The relevant provisions of section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act allowing

DIAMINES AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

depreciation which are against the provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Therefore a show cause notice dated

DIAMINES & CHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE PR. CIT- 1, BARODA

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

depreciation which are against the provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Therefore a show cause notice dated

THE ARVIND LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 862/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-2008 Arvind Ltd.(Earlier Known As Arvind A.C.I.T., Mills Ltd.), Vs. Circle-1, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad. Naroda, Ahmedabad.

iia) of explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act has to be calculated after excluding the amount of revaluation of assets. Thus, claim of the assessee representing the amount of depreciation on the revalued figure was disallowed while calculating the profit under section 115JB of the Act. 29. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal