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

depreciation on windmill while computing book profit u/s.H5JB was not examined by learned Assessing Officer. Revision on this ground is mere change of opinion, and therefore, illegal, and therefore, requires to be quashed. 4. The learned C.I.T. has erred in passing revision order on the ground that details of valuation of closing stock was not furnished before learned Assessing Officer

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

9) equally prohibits deduction in respect of contribution to any fund or trust etc. for any purpose other than that provided in section 36(1)(iv) and (v) and the impugned contribution was not covered by section 36(1 )(iv) and (v). 2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

9) equally prohibits deduction in respect of contribution to any fund or trust etc. for any purpose other than that provided in section 36(1)(iv) and (v) and the impugned contribution was not covered by section 36(1 )(iv) and (v). 2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

9) equally prohibits deduction in respect of contribution to any fund or trust etc. for any purpose other than that provided in section 36(1)(iv) and (v) and the impugned contribution was not covered by section 36(1 )(iv) and (v). 2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

9) equally prohibits deduction in respect of contribution to any fund or trust etc. for any purpose other than that provided in section 36(1)(iv) and (v) and the impugned contribution was not covered by section 36(1 )(iv) and (v). 2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

9) equally prohibits deduction in respect of contribution to any fund or trust etc. for any purpose other than that provided in section 36(1)(iv) and (v) and the impugned contribution was not covered by section 36(1 )(iv) and (v). 2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

9) equally prohibits deduction in respect of contribution to any fund or trust etc. for any purpose other than that provided in section 36(1)(iv) and (v) and the impugned contribution was not covered by section 36(1 )(iv) and (v). 2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE DCIT ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ),, AHMEDABAD vs. BLACK PEARL SERVICES LIMITED, G.S.E.C. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act being payment of interest to the related party. In view of the above, the AO disallowed the amount of interest debited to the profit and loss account for Rs. 2,84,70,757/- and the depreciation of Rs. 17,16,078/- attributable to the amount of interest capitalized in the year under consideration

THE DCIT ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ),, AHMEDABAD vs. BLACK PEARL SERVICES LIMITED, G.S.E.C. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act being payment of interest to the related party. In view of the above, the AO disallowed the amount of interest debited to the profit and loss account for Rs. 2,84,70,757/- and the depreciation of Rs. 17,16,078/- attributable to the amount of interest capitalized in the year under consideration

THE DCIT ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ),, AHMEDABAD vs. BLACK PEARL SERVICES LIMITED, G.S.E.C. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act being payment of interest to the related party. In view of the above, the AO disallowed the amount of interest debited to the profit and loss account for Rs. 2,84,70,757/- and the depreciation of Rs. 17,16,078/- attributable to the amount of interest capitalized in the year under consideration

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

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

SHRI ALTAFHUSEN MAHEMUDUL HASAN SIDDIKI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.577/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.969/Ahd/2015 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Altafhusen M. Siddiki, Prop Dcit, Circle-9 Of Sunmoon Roadways 6/D/1, Vs Ahmedabad Pursottam Estate, Nr. Cozy Hotel, Ranipur Patia, Sarkhej Road, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405 Pan No.Arsps3765P

depreciation on such vehicle. ITA Nos.577/Ahd/2012 & ITANo.969/Ahd/2015 Altafhusen M. Siddiki For AY 2008-09 & 2010-11 4 5. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs.19,515/- being 10% of telephone expenses as personal use. 6. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts

SHRI ALTAFHUSEN M. SIDDIKI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.577/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.969/Ahd/2015 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Altafhusen M. Siddiki, Prop Dcit, Circle-9 Of Sunmoon Roadways 6/D/1, Vs Ahmedabad Pursottam Estate, Nr. Cozy Hotel, Ranipur Patia, Sarkhej Road, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405 Pan No.Arsps3765P

depreciation on such vehicle. ITA Nos.577/Ahd/2012 & ITANo.969/Ahd/2015 Altafhusen M. Siddiki For AY 2008-09 & 2010-11 4 5. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs.19,515/- being 10% of telephone expenses as personal use. 6. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts

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

9,78,085/- whereas the amount as per the invoice furnished by the assessee stands at ₹ 8,78198/- which also creates doubt on the value at which the depreciation is to be claimed. Accordingly we are of the view that the impugned issue needs to be verified at the level of the AO. A.Y. 2009-2010 with others

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

9,78,085/- whereas the amount as per the invoice furnished by the assessee stands at ₹ 8,78198/- which also creates doubt on the value at which the depreciation is to be claimed. Accordingly we are of the view that the impugned issue needs to be verified at the level of the AO. A.Y. 2009-2010 with others

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

9,78,085/- whereas the amount as per the invoice furnished by the assessee stands at ₹ 8,78198/- which also creates doubt on the value at which the depreciation is to be claimed. Accordingly we are of the view that the impugned issue needs to be verified at the level of the AO. A.Y. 2009-2010 with others

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

9,78,085/- whereas the amount as per the invoice furnished by the assessee stands at ₹ 8,78198/- which also creates doubt on the value at which the depreciation is to be claimed. Accordingly we are of the view that the impugned issue needs to be verified at the level of the AO. A.Y. 2009-2010 with others

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