KANSARA POPATLAL TRIBHUVAN METAL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground number 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Your appellant submits that revision on this ground is mere change of opinion, which is illegal, and therefore, order passed u/s.263 on this ground is required to be cancelled. The appellant reserves its right to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove either before

GANESH HOUSING CORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4, NOW, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) “Ganesh Corporate House” Navjivan Trust Bldg. Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaacg 5590 Q With Co No.216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Navjivan Trust Bldg. “Ganesh Corporate House” Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri C. Danday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2018 आदेश/O R D E R

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." [ Emphasis supplied] 4. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GANESH HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) “Ganesh Corporate House” Navjivan Trust Bldg. Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaacg 5590 Q With Co No.216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Navjivan Trust Bldg. “Ganesh Corporate House” Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri C. Danday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2018 आदेश/O R D E R

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." [ Emphasis supplied] 4. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 1 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. KHYATI CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby allowed

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

depreciation in accordance with provisions of section 32(1)(ii) r.w.s. Rule 5(1) and Appendix 1 and section 32(1)(iia) at the time of giving appeal effect.” 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order, the Revenue is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under consideration

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act by relying upon the order passed in AY 2013-14. 7) The learned CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in not appreciating the fact that in Appellant's own case, for the identical payment, the Hon'ble ITAT has deleted the disallowance made

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

40A(2)(b) of the Act. On this reasoning only, the case of the revenue fails and assessee succeeds. 36.2 Be that as it may be, it is also important to note that the amount of salary was accepted by the revenue in the subsequent year. This contention of the learned AR was not doubted by the learned DR appearing

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

40A(2)(b) of the Act. On this reasoning only, the case of the revenue fails and assessee succeeds. 36.2 Be that as it may be, it is also important to note that the amount of salary was accepted by the revenue in the subsequent year. This contention of the learned AR was not doubted by the learned DR appearing

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

40A(2)(b) of the Act. On this reasoning only, the case of the revenue fails and assessee succeeds. 36.2 Be that as it may be, it is also important to note that the amount of salary was accepted by the revenue in the subsequent year. This contention of the learned AR was not doubted by the learned DR appearing

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

40A(2)(b) of the Act. On this reasoning only, the case of the revenue fails and assessee succeeds. 36.2 Be that as it may be, it is also important to note that the amount of salary was accepted by the revenue in the subsequent year. This contention of the learned AR was not doubted by the learned DR appearing

SHARMA CARS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, NOW CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1655/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sharma Cars P.Ltd. Dcit, Cir.8 “Kayakalp”, N.H. No.8 Vs Ahmedabad. Naroda, Ahmedabad 382330. Pan: Aadcs 0305 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri T.P. Hemani & Shri P.B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.Dr

b) of section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act deserves to be disallowed. He noticed details of such related persons and the salaries paid to them. Thereafter, he disallowed a sum of Rs.1,50,73,321/-. Relevant discussion made by the AO on page no.17 of the assessment order reads as under: 3.9 The assessee has made following salary

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1),AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under\nconsideration

40A(2) of the Act.\n\nDepreciation on electrical installation\n\n9) The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming (he action of\nthe learned AO in making disallowance of the depreciation of Rs, 5,54.435/- claimed\non electrical installation by holding electrical installation as electrical fittings.\n\n10) The learned CIT(A) has erred

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),(TPO), BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 40A(2)(b), in the name of fee for use of technical knowhow, for the manufacture of the assessee's products, as revenue expenditure, without determining the matter on merits and by solely relying on his order for the assessment year 2003-04, which has been contested by the Department as erroneous. ITA No.4565/Ahd/2007 and 4 Other appeals

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 40A(2)(b), in the name of fee for use of technical knowhow, for the manufacture of the assessee's products, as revenue expenditure, without determining the matter on merits and by solely relying on his order for the assessment year 2003-04, which has been contested by the Department as erroneous. ITA No.4565/Ahd/2007 and 4 Other appeals

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 40A(2)(b), in the name of fee for use of technical knowhow, for the manufacture of the assessee's products, as revenue expenditure, without determining the matter on merits and by solely relying on his order for the assessment year 2003-04, which has been contested by the Department as erroneous. ITA No.4565/Ahd/2007 and 4 Other appeals

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 40A(2)(b), in the name of fee for use of technical knowhow, for the manufacture of the assessee's products, as revenue expenditure, without determining the matter on merits and by solely relying on his order for the assessment year 2003-04, which has been contested by the Department as erroneous. ITA No.4565/Ahd/2007 and 4 Other appeals

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 40A(2)(b), in the name of fee for use of technical knowhow, for the manufacture of the assessee's products, as revenue expenditure, without determining the matter on merits and by solely relying on his order for the assessment year 2003-04, which has been contested by the Department as erroneous. ITA No.4565/Ahd/2007 and 4 Other appeals

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 40A(2)(b), in the name of fee for use of technical knowhow, for the manufacture of the assessee's products, as revenue expenditure, without determining the matter on merits and by solely relying on his order for the assessment year 2003-04, which has been contested by the Department as erroneous. ITA No.4565/Ahd/2007 and 4 Other appeals

M/S. GARRISON POLYSACKS P.LTD.,,BARODA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BARODA

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

b) deduction shall be allowed in respect of any contribution towards approved gratuity fund. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition on the issues by observing as under:- “7.2 I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant and have gone through the assessment orders as well. 7.2.1 Admittedly

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1659/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 ) बनाम/ 1. Sun Pharmaceuticals 1. The Acit Industries Ltd. Cen.Cir-1 Vs. “Sparc” Tandalja Baroda – 20 2. The Acit 2. Sun Pharmaceu- Central Circle-1 Ticals Industries Baroda Ltd. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 3124K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri R.C. Panday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Vadodara [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cab/(A)- 2/387/2014-15 Dated 31/03/2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 14/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. Ita Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (By Assessee) & Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 (By Revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst.Year - 2008-09 2

7. The contention of assessee that without disturbing the completed assessment of UTL, no addition can be made in the hands of assessee, the same contention was raised in the writ petition filed before the Hon’ble Gujrat HC which was rejected. 8. The alternate contention of assessee that deduction of hire charges of Rs. 660.7 lakhs is admissible, which