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

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

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. 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. 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

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 DY. CIT., ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. M/S. KAIRA DIST. CO.-OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2218/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T, M/S. Kaira District Co-Op. Milk, Anand Circle, Vs. Producers Union Ltd., Anand. Amul Dairy Road, Anand-388001. Pan: Aaaak8694F

section 32(1 (iia) the expression used is "shall be allowed". Thus the assessee had earned the benefit as soon as he had purchased the new plant and machinery in full but it is restricted to 50% in that particular year on account of period of usages. Such restrictions cannot divest the statutory right. Law does not prohibit that balance

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

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. AAGAM INFRABUILD PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1762/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

section 32 of the Act. 6. We have heard the Ld.DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the case-laws relied by the assessee before the CIT(A). We find that the identical cases came up before the Delhi Tribunal where the assessee claimed depreciation of motor cycle which was not registered in the name

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&

355/- in respect of all the equipment’s amounting to Rs. 7,09,31,184/- in question which were put to use during the year for ONGC and OIL India Ltd project by holding that the same were not put to use during the year. (ii) The learned A.O. as well as CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there were

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&

355/- in respect of all the equipment’s amounting to Rs. 7,09,31,184/- in question which were put to use during the year for ONGC and OIL India Ltd project by holding that the same were not put to use during the year. (ii) The learned A.O. as well as CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there were

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI INFRA (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation on such machinery. However, now the assessee in the Page 2 of 7 ITA nos.2633-3205/AHD/2015-16 Asstt. Year 2012-13 appeal before us wishes to claim the deduction under section 35 of the Act. Thus, both the issues are interconnected. In this backdrop of the facts of the case, the submission of the assessee goes as under: 3. The learned

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI INFRA (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation on such machinery. However, now the assessee in the Page 2 of 7 ITA nos.2633-3205/AHD/2015-16 Asstt. Year 2012-13 appeal before us wishes to claim the deduction under section 35 of the Act. Thus, both the issues are interconnected. In this backdrop of the facts of the case, the submission of the assessee goes as under: 3. The learned

ADANI INFRA (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation on such machinery. However, now the assessee in the Page 2 of 7 ITA nos.2633-3205/AHD/2015-16 Asstt. Year 2012-13 appeal before us wishes to claim the deduction under section 35 of the Act. Thus, both the issues are interconnected. In this backdrop of the facts of the case, the submission of the assessee goes as under: 3. The learned

M/S. ROTOFILT ENGINEERS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation on such machinery. However, now the assessee in the Page 2 of 7 ITA nos.2633-3205/AHD/2015-16 Asstt. Year 2012-13 appeal before us wishes to claim the deduction under section 35 of the Act. Thus, both the issues are interconnected. In this backdrop of the facts of the case, the submission of the assessee goes as under: 3. The learned

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