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

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 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

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Depreciation - Allowance/Rate of Assessment years 1991-92 and 1996-97-whether higher rate of depreciation is also admissible when motor lorry is used by assessee in his own business of transportation of goods on hire - In the judgement Hon'ble court Held- Yes' ITA Nos. 484 to 486/Ahd/2023 (ACIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Inferacontract

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Depreciation - Allowance/Rate of Assessment years 1991-92 and 1996-97-whether higher rate of depreciation is also admissible when motor lorry is used by assessee in his own business of transportation of goods on hire - In the judgement Hon'ble court Held- Yes' ITA Nos. 484 to 486/Ahd/2023 (ACIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Inferacontract

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Depreciation - Allowance/Rate of Assessment years 1991-92 and 1996-97-whether higher rate of depreciation is also admissible when motor lorry is used by assessee in his own business of transportation of goods on hire - In the judgement Hon'ble court Held- Yes' ITA Nos. 484 to 486/Ahd/2023 (ACIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Inferacontract

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

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section. 2. The P&L a/c— (a) shall be so made out as clearly to disclose the result of the working of the company during the period covered by the account; and (b) shall disclose every material feature, including credits or receipts and debits or expenses in respect of non-recurring transactions or transactions of an exceptional nature

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

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section. 2. The P&L a/c— (a) shall be so made out as clearly to disclose the result of the working of the company during the period covered by the account; and (b) shall disclose every material feature, including credits or receipts and debits or expenses in respect of non-recurring transactions or transactions of an exceptional nature

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 80-IE of the Act. The AO observed that while the assessee allocated depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 80-IE of the Act. The AO observed that while the assessee allocated depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 80-IE of the Act. The AO observed that while the assessee allocated depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 80-IE of the Act. The AO observed that while the assessee allocated depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected