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 43 of the Act. The AO accordingly treated the subsidy received by the assessee as revenue receipt and added to the total income of the assessee. 60. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: 6.4 It is seen that addition made on account of sales

NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, 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 43 of the Act. The AO accordingly treated the subsidy received by the assessee as revenue receipt and added to the total income of the assessee. 60. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: 6.4 It is seen that addition made on account of sales

JT. CTI (OSD), CIRCLE-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 43 of the Act. The AO accordingly treated the subsidy received by the assessee as revenue receipt and added to the total income of the assessee. 60. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: 6.4 It is seen that addition made on account of sales

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, 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 43 of the Act. The AO accordingly treated the subsidy received by the assessee as revenue receipt and added to the total income of the assessee. 60. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: 6.4 It is seen that addition made on account of sales

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)

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. These factual aspects were not disputed by the Ld. DR in the present Assessment Years as well. Thus, Ground No. 5 is allowed. 19. As regards to Ground Nos. 6 and 6.1, disallowance of weighted deduction under Section 35 (1)(ii) of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee

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)

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. These factual aspects were not disputed by the Ld. DR in the present Assessment Years as well. Thus, Ground No. 5 is allowed. 19. As regards to Ground Nos. 6 and 6.1, disallowance of weighted deduction under Section 35 (1)(ii) of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee

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)

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. These factual aspects were not disputed by the Ld. DR in the present Assessment Years as well. Thus, Ground No. 5 is allowed. 19. As regards to Ground Nos. 6 and 6.1, disallowance of weighted deduction under Section 35 (1)(ii) of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-\n13 & 2013-14 filed by the assessee are partly allowed, while the appeal of the assessee\nfor AY 2014-15 is allowed

section 43 of the\nAct. The AO accordingly treated the subsidy received by the assessee as revenue\nreceipt and added to the total income of the assessee.\n60. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the\nAO by observing as under:\n6.4 It is seen that addition made on account of sales

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GOPAL IRON & STEEL CO.(GUJ.) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

355/- made on account of disallowance of claim of depreciation, without properly appreciating the fact that ample opportunities given to the assessee to produce necessary evidence have not been availed/complied by the assessee forcing the AO to resort to passing ex-parte order u/s.144 of the Act. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in admitting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

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

depreciation additionally allowed on account of disallowance of Section 42, as allowed by the then learned AO, erroneously treated as addition by the learned A O, be kindly deleted and the said amount be kindly granted as deduction from the assessed income. 5. The appellant reserves its right to add, amend, alter, substitute or modify

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

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

depreciation additionally allowed on account of disallowance of Section 42, as allowed by the then learned AO, erroneously treated as addition by the learned A O, be kindly deleted and the said amount be kindly granted as deduction from the assessed income. 5. The appellant reserves its right to add, amend, alter, substitute or modify

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

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

depreciation additionally allowed on account of disallowance of Section 42, as allowed by the then learned AO, erroneously treated as addition by the learned A O, be kindly deleted and the said amount be kindly granted as deduction from the assessed income. 5. The appellant reserves its right to add, amend, alter, substitute or modify

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

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

depreciation additionally allowed on account of disallowance of Section 42, as allowed by the then learned AO, erroneously treated as addition by the learned A O, be kindly deleted and the said amount be kindly granted as deduction from the assessed income. 5. The appellant reserves its right to add, amend, alter, substitute or modify

SHRI PRAVINCHANDRA R PATEL,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

355/-whereas the depreciation actually allowable should be of Rs.60,69,787/- and accordingly the addition of Rs.7,00,000/- was made. 28.1 In the submission vide dated 08/06/2018 the appellant has merely contended that on facts, such disallowance of depreciation is not sustainable. No specific has been provided and no rebuttal to the findings of the AO has been

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

355/-whereas the depreciation actually allowable should be of Rs.60,69,787/- and accordingly the addition of Rs.7,00,000/- was made. 28.1 In the submission vide dated 08/06/2018 the appellant has merely contended that on facts, such disallowance of depreciation is not sustainable. No specific has been provided and no rebuttal to the findings of the AO has been

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

355/-whereas the depreciation actually allowable should be of Rs.60,69,787/- and accordingly the addition of Rs.7,00,000/- was made. 28.1 In the submission vide dated 08/06/2018 the appellant has merely contended that on facts, such disallowance of depreciation is not sustainable. No specific has been provided and no rebuttal to the findings of the AO has been

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

depreciation on electrical installations came before this tribunal in own case of the assessee in ITA No. 2028/Ahd/2013 corresponding to A.Y. 2009-10 where the coordinate bench vide order dated 16-08-2016 decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under: 12. In ground no. 3, the Assessing Officer is aggrieved that the learned

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

depreciation on electrical installations came before this tribunal in own case of the assessee in ITA No. 2028/Ahd/2013 corresponding to A.Y. 2009-10 where the coordinate bench vide order dated 16-08-2016 decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under: 12. In ground no. 3, the Assessing Officer is aggrieved that the learned