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

section 40A(3). Therefore, all depended upon the manner of making the estimate. If it had been made in a way which covered the entire position regarding income and expenditure, naturally there would not be any scope for further deductions. 57.5 At this juncture, we also find pertinent to note that even assuming the closing stock declared by the assessee

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

section 40A(3). Therefore, all depended upon the manner of making the estimate. If it had been made in a way which covered the entire position regarding income and expenditure, naturally there would not be any scope for further deductions. 57.5 At this juncture, we also find pertinent to note that even assuming the closing stock declared by the assessee

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

section 40A(3). Therefore, all depended upon the manner of making the estimate. If it had been made in a way which covered the entire position regarding income and expenditure, naturally there would not be any scope for further deductions. 57.5 At this juncture, we also find pertinent to note that even assuming the closing stock declared by the assessee

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

40A(2) of the Act. ITA Nos. 1583&1585/Ahd/2024 Crest Speciality Resins Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (Now DCIT) Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2016-17 - 3– Depreciation on electrical installation 9) The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming (he action of the learned AO in making disallowance of the depreciation of Rs, 5,54.435/- claimed

M/S. DINESHCHANDRA R.AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT.LTD.,,DEESA vs. THE JT.CIT, B.K.RANGE,, PALANPUR

In the result, ground number 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

depreciation on said car even though it was bought by company in name of its Director. 7.1 However, in the instant facts, Ld. CIT(Appeals) has made a specific observation that firstly, the assets (vehicles) have not been acquired out of funds of the assessee company, secondly, the assets have been purchased in the names of Shri Bharat Agarwal, Dinesh

M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the order of the Ld

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

depreciation under Section 35AC of the Act. Even otherwise, the Ld. PCIT erred in not pointing out any error and the amount prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Hence, the Ld. PCIT erred in invoking the powers u/s. 263 of the Act on this issue. 3 Ground No. 3 Direction on account of Section 40A

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

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act by\nrelying upon the order passed in AY 2013-14.\n\n7) The learned CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in not appreciating the fact that\nin Appellant's own case, for the identical payment, the Hon'ble ITAT has deleted the\ndisallowance made

THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. SHIV REFOILS AND CAKES, CHANSAMA, PATAN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1672/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Acit Shiv Refoils & Cakes बनाम/ Patan Circle, Plot No.2 Gidc Estate V/S. Patan – 384 265 Chanasma, Patan

depreciation claimed on assets. The AO also made an addition of Rs.34,50,000/- on account of unsecured loans u/s 68 of the Act and disallowed Rs.4,14,000/- as interest paid on these loans. 2.1. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who deleted the above additions, allowing relief

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT INSECTICIDES LIMITED, ANKLESHWAR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Asstt.Commissioner Of Gujarat Insecticides Limited Income Tax Vs Plot No.805/806, Gidc Estate Circle-2(1)(1) Ankleshwar Vadodara Bharuch – 393 002 Pan: Aaacg 8436 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) … "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Arti Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 19/10/2023, Arising Out Of An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. Facts Of The Case: The Acit Vs. Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. Asst. Year : 2015-16

depreciation in respect of machinery acquired and installed in the last year without appreciating the fact that relevant proviso to section 32(1)(ia) of the Act was brought by Finance Act, 2015 and applicable for A.Y 2016-17 onwards? 4, The appellant craves leaves ot add, modify, amend or alter any grounds of appeal at the time

ASIATIC COLOUR CHEM INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

depreciation at 10%). the Assessing Officer also made addition as suggested by TPO to the extent of Rs. 38,72,827/- upward adjustment u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order as well as the TPO order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

40A(2)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,35,19,424/- and disallowance of sales/business/products promotion expenses under Section 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.28,24,15,000/-. The Assessing Officer further made disallowance of commission paid to non-resident amounting to Rs.67,39,814/- and disallowance of expenses under Section 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.95

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

40A(2)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,35,19,424/- and disallowance of sales/business/products promotion expenses under Section 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.28,24,15,000/-. The Assessing Officer further made disallowance of commission paid to non-resident amounting to Rs.67,39,814/- and disallowance of expenses under Section 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.95

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. APPLITECH SOLUTION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 40A(3) of the Act was liable to be deleted. Ground No.3 of the Revenue’s appeal for AY 1999-2000 is accordingly dismissed. 14. Now we shall take up Revenue’s appeal for AY 2001-02 being ITA No.247/Ahd/2020. As regards Ground Nos.1 & 2 of this appeal, it is observed that the issues raised therein by the Revenue

SHREE ALEKH,BHAVNAGAR vs. PCIT AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

depreciation was justly claimed. 4. The Id. PCIT has further erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the view taken by the AO is a possible view and hence the proceedings are illegal and bad in law. 5. The Id. PCIT has further erred in law in not coming to any concrete conclusion and without conducting

INTAS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, R-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

40A(2)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made disallowance of Foreign Exchange loss on capital assets amounting to Rs.86,27,682/- as per the provisions of Section 37(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made disallowance of sales promotion amounting to Rs.81,23,963/- under Section 37(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further made