THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation on office equipment directed to be deleted. 64.7 In view of the above discussion and respectfully following the order this tribunal in own case of assessee the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 38.1 In view of the above finding in the own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2011- 12 we do not find

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation on office equipment directed to be deleted. 64.7 In view of the above discussion and respectfully following the order this tribunal in own case of assessee the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 38.1 In view of the above finding in the own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2011- 12 we do not find

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation on office equipment directed to be deleted. 64.7 In view of the above discussion and respectfully following the order this tribunal in own case of assessee the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 38.1 In view of the above finding in the own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2011- 12 we do not find

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation on office equipment directed to be deleted. 64.7 In view of the above discussion and respectfully following the order this tribunal in own case of assessee the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 38.1 In view of the above finding in the own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2011- 12 we do not find

KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.(OSD),CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an 46[undertaking], any machinery or plant

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an 46[undertaking], any machinery or plant

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an 46[undertaking], any machinery or plant

AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

Section 92(1) provides that, "(a)ny income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm's length price". In order to attract the arm's length price adjustment, therefore, a transaction has to be an 'international transaction' first. The expression 'international transaction' is a defined expression. Section 92 B defines the expression 'international transaction

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

Section 92(1) provides that, "(a)ny income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm's length price". In order to attract the arm's length price adjustment, therefore, a transaction has to be an 'international transaction' first. The expression 'international transaction' is a defined expression. Section 92 B defines the expression 'international transaction

GUJARAT GAS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we are of the considered view that Ld

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, thereby making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 11. In the result, Ground (II) of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Ground No. (III) non-granting of deduction under Section 35DD of the Act of Rs. 5 crores. 12. Regarding the non-grant of deduction

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

Section 35D of the Act and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is concerned, the learned Counsel for the assessee has not pressed the same at the time of hearing. Accordingly, Ground No.2 of the CO is dismissed as not pressed. 22. As regards the issue raised by the assessee in Ground No.3 of its Cross Objection

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

Section 35D of the Act and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is concerned, the learned Counsel for the assessee has not pressed the same at the time of hearing. Accordingly, Ground No.2 of the CO is dismissed as not pressed. 22. As regards the issue raised by the assessee in Ground No.3 of its Cross Objection

ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

Section 35D of the Act and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is concerned, the learned Counsel for the assessee has not pressed the same at the time of hearing. Accordingly, Ground No.2 of the CO is dismissed as not pressed. 22. As regards the issue raised by the assessee in Ground No.3 of its Cross Objection

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET (DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

Section 35D of the Act and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is concerned, the learned Counsel for the assessee has not pressed the same at the time of hearing. Accordingly, Ground No.2 of the CO is dismissed as not pressed. 22. As regards the issue raised by the assessee in Ground No.3 of its Cross Objection

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation of plant and machinery used by Sun Pharma Industries & Sun Pharma Sikkim. 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s 80 IB/80 IE in respect of receipt of interest of Rs.29,49.60,969/- on delayed payments on sales, without appreciating the facts and reasons mentioned

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation of plant and machinery used by Sun Pharma Industries & Sun Pharma Sikkim. 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s 80 IB/80 IE in respect of receipt of interest of Rs.29,49.60,969/- on delayed payments on sales, without appreciating the facts and reasons mentioned

BHARATKUMAR RAJENDRAPRASAD DAVE,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us.

depreciation of the assessee has been allowed by the AO himself in the assessment proceedings for assessment year 2014-15 itself. We observe that the assessee was already running a hospital in the name of “Stavya Spine Hospital” at Ellis Bridge at Ahmedabad. During the year under consideration, the assessee opened the new hospital at SG Road, Ahmedabad

BHARATKUMAR RAJENDRAPRASAD DAVE,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us.

depreciation of the assessee has been allowed by the AO himself in the assessment proceedings for assessment year 2014-15 itself. We observe that the assessee was already running a hospital in the name of “Stavya Spine Hospital” at Ellis Bridge at Ahmedabad. During the year under consideration, the assessee opened the new hospital at SG Road, Ahmedabad