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

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 guidance from the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Oawal Agro Mills Ltd. reported in 341 ITR 467, wherein it was held as under: “By catena

SIRHIND STEELS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 713/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Sirhind Steel Ltd., P.C.I.T-4, 7Th Floor, Shalin Building, Vs. Ambawadi, Nr. Nehru Bridge Corner, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad.

350 held that the assets carrying same rate of depreciation will fall under the same block of assets. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble bench reads as under: After perusing sections

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

section 801A(8) and 801A(10) even though the same are not applicable. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.6 The learned AO, without requiring appellant to furnish any details in assessment proceedings, erred in observing that apportionment of expenses has been done on mechanical basis & no actual expenses are accounted on wells. It is submitted that

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

section 801A(8) and 801A(10) even though the same are not applicable. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.6 The learned AO, without requiring appellant to furnish any details in assessment proceedings, erred in observing that apportionment of expenses has been done on mechanical basis & no actual expenses are accounted on wells. It is submitted that

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

section 801A(8) and 801A(10) even though the same are not applicable. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.6 The learned AO, without requiring appellant to furnish any details in assessment proceedings, erred in observing that apportionment of expenses has been done on mechanical basis & no actual expenses are accounted on wells. It is submitted that

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

depreciation. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Rajendra Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 2177/AHD/2018 wherein under identical facts relief was allowed to the assessee. 56. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SINTEX INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal ITAs 2786/Ahd/2014, 1416/Ahd/2018, and 1417/Ahd/2018 filed by revenue are dismissed and appeal ITA No

depreciation earlier allowed on the basis of the old cost. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. Under section 43A, as it stood at the relevant time, it was inter alia provided that where an assessee had acquired an asset from a country outside India for the purposes of his business, and in consequence of a change in the rate

M/S. KALATHIA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

350 3,588,2 870,899 1,419 5,878,4 25,760,90 92 300 ,188 48 ,297 45 6 10. It can be seen from the aforementioned chart the assessee has claimed additional depreciation on the block of machineries. Section

STHAPATI ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIORS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2361/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Sthapati Architecture & Dcit, बनाम/ Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 8, Vs. 502, New York Plaza, Ahmedabad. Opp. Judges Bunglow, Satellite, Ahmedabad – 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahcs 8758 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Sakar Sharma, C.A. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Sankar, Sr. D.R.

350 ITR 527, wherein it was held as under: “Therefore, in the facts of the present case, we hold that the lessor i.e. the assessee is the owner of the vehicles. As the owner, it used the assets in the course of its business, satisfying both requirements of Section 32 of the Act and hence, is entitled to claim depreciation

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NASCENT INFO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2828/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Ito M/S. Nascent Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Ward-3(1)(1), Vs. A-805, Sapath-Iv, Opp. Ahmedabad Karnavati Club, Ahmedabad- 380054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aac Cn3 670 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Santosh Karnani, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Mehul K. Patel, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 13/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed - Am:

350 ITR 527 has decided the issue against the assessee involving similar facts & circumstances vide order dated 14-01-2013. Accordingly, the assessee was not entitled to the depreciation in respect of lease datacentre. However, it is pertinent to note that the assessee claimed depreciation on such datacentre before the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

DHOLU CONSTRUCTION & PROJECTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

Section 32 [1] of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act" for brevity] provides for depreciation in respect of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets as well as certain intangible assets owned wholly or partly by the assessee and used for the purpose of the business or profession, at the prescribed rates. New Appendix I, which is applicable

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA vs. M/S. UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, PANCHMAHAL

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1636/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Sun Petrochemicals P.Ltd. Baroda. Vs 402, R.K. Centre, 4Th Floor Fatehgunj Main Road Vadodara 390 002. Pan : Aaecs 0891 E आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1635/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Unimed Technologies Ltd Baroda. Vs Survey No.22 & 234 Baska Ujeti Halol Panchmahal, Gujarat 389 350 Pan : Aaace 4022 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Virendra Ojha, Cit-Dr

350 PAN : AAACE 4022 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, AR Revenue by : Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 12/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 11/05/2020 O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT: Present two appeals are directed at the instance of Revenue against separate

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD., VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1636/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Sun Petrochemicals P.Ltd. Baroda. Vs 402, R.K. Centre, 4Th Floor Fatehgunj Main Road Vadodara 390 002. Pan : Aaecs 0891 E आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1635/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Unimed Technologies Ltd Baroda. Vs Survey No.22 & 234 Baska Ujeti Halol Panchmahal, Gujarat 389 350 Pan : Aaace 4022 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Virendra Ojha, Cit-Dr

350 PAN : AAACE 4022 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, AR Revenue by : Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 12/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 11/05/2020 O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT: Present two appeals are directed at the instance of Revenue against separate

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

350/-. The Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act amounting to Rs.64,67,783/-. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.38,840/ in respect of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act relating to the late payment of PF/ESIC payment. The Assessing Officer assessed the income at Rs.61,61,15,800/-. The Assessing Officer

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

350/-. The Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act amounting to Rs.64,67,783/-. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.38,840/ in respect of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act relating to the late payment of PF/ESIC payment. The Assessing Officer assessed the income at Rs.61,61,15,800/-. The Assessing Officer

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2003-04. I.T.A No. 1246/Ahd/2012 A.Y. 2003-04 Page No 2 Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Company engaged in Generation and Distribution of Electricity

VEER PLASTICS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT -4, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 263 passed by the Pr. CIT, the assessee is before us. 5. The Ld. A. R. submitted that the Assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 26.10.17 declaring total income at Rs.18,75,68,180/- after considering various income and expenses including the followings: " Deduction u/s 80-IC : Rs.74,72,390/- " Additional depreciation: Rs.6

M/S. AMAZON TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2308/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Amazon Textiles Pvt. Ltd.,, D.C.I.T., 105, Sakar-1, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2), Nr. Nehru Bridge, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabcb6914E & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2466/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 D.C.I.T., Amazon Textiles Pvt. Ltd.,, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 105, Sakar-1, Ahmedabad. Nr. Nehru Bridge, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabcb6914E

350/- in the year under consideration. Accordingly it was claimed that the interest on such specific loan and the interest income should be given the benefit for making the disallowance of interest expenses. As per the assessee, the amount of interest which needs to be disallowed after considering the interest on the specific loan as well as interest income, stands