THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL ENGINEERING & GALVANIZERS,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

45 (4) is not attracted as the very first condition of transfer by way of distribution of assets was not satisfied. For the sake of clarity the facts of the case, in brief, are reproduced as under: - “The assessee-firm was consisted of sixteen partners. The assets of the assessee were revalued on 31-7-1994 and thereafter

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 32. The AR also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT v. Zydus Wellness Ltd. [(2017) 87 taxmann.com 82 (Guj)], wherein the High Court, following Smifs Securities Ltd., upheld the allowability of depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation. It was also pointed out that the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 32. The AR also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT v. Zydus Wellness Ltd. [(2017) 87 taxmann.com 82 (Guj)], wherein the High Court, following Smifs Securities Ltd., upheld the allowability of depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation. It was also pointed out that the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue

THE DCIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. V. F. ARVIND BRANDS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and the CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1904/Ahd/2013 & Cross Objection No. 204/Ahd/2013 (In Ita No.1904/Ahd/2013) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 D.C.I.T.(Osd), M/S. V. F. Arvind Brands Pvt. Circle-8, Vs. Ltd. Ahmedabad. Arvind Mills Premises, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad-380025. Pan: Aaccv 2727 L (Applicant) (Responent) / Cross Objector

45,84,000/- 25% 18,14,46,000/- However, the AO was not satisfied with the claim of the depreciation of the assessee in respect of the above assets due to the reasons as detailed under: Arvind Brands Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT(OSD) Asstt. Year 2008-09 4 " Design and technical know-how: The assessee is not carrying out industrial

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CLARIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 295/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 The D.C.I.T, M/S Claris Lifesciences Limited, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. Claris Corporate Hq, Ahmedabad. Near Parimal Rly. Crossing, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacc6366Q

45 of the Income-tax Act. To put it simply, the benefit of section 54E will be available to the assessee irrespective of the fact that the computation of capital gains is done either under sections 48 and 49 or under section 50. The contention of the revenue that by amendment to section 50 the long-term capital asset

THA ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

45,21,368/-. The ld.CIT(A) further found that the assessee itself has disallowed Rs.25 lakhs under this head. She confirmed the disallowance of Rs.1,20,78,214/-. 56. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the decision of Daga Capital Management P.Ltd., (supra) has been reversed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. It is reported

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

45,21,368/-. The ld.CIT(A) further found that the assessee itself has disallowed Rs.25 lakhs under this head. She confirmed the disallowance of Rs.1,20,78,214/-. 56. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the decision of Daga Capital Management P.Ltd., (supra) has been reversed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. It is reported

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

45,21,368/-. The ld.CIT(A) further found that the assessee itself has disallowed Rs.25 lakhs under this head. She confirmed the disallowance of Rs.1,20,78,214/-. 56. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the decision of Daga Capital Management P.Ltd., (supra) has been reversed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. It is reported

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

45,21,368/-. The ld.CIT(A) further found that the assessee itself has disallowed Rs.25 lakhs under this head. She confirmed the disallowance of Rs.1,20,78,214/-. 56. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the decision of Daga Capital Management P.Ltd., (supra) has been reversed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. It is reported

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

45,21,368/-. The ld.CIT(A) further found that the assessee itself has disallowed Rs.25 lakhs under this head. She confirmed the disallowance of Rs.1,20,78,214/-. 56. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the decision of Daga Capital Management P.Ltd., (supra) has been reversed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. It is reported

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

45,21,368/-. The ld.CIT(A) further found that the assessee itself has disallowed Rs.25 lakhs under this head. She confirmed the disallowance of Rs.1,20,78,214/-. 56. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the decision of Daga Capital Management P.Ltd., (supra) has been reversed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. It is reported

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

45,21,368/-. The ld.CIT(A) further found that the assessee itself has disallowed Rs.25 lakhs under this head. She confirmed the disallowance of Rs.1,20,78,214/-. 56. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the decision of Daga Capital Management P.Ltd., (supra) has been reversed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. It is reported

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act." 3. At the outset itself, the Ld. AR, appearing for the assessee, submitted that all the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal are squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal ACIT Vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Asst. Year

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1462/Ahd/2016 2.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1463/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

depreciation has been held allowable in succeeding assessment year: • Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Asstt CIT 45 taxmann.com 337 10. We have also carefully gone through the Second Proviso to section

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1462/Ahd/2016 2.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1463/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

depreciation has been held allowable in succeeding assessment year: • Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Asstt CIT 45 taxmann.com 337 10. We have also carefully gone through the Second Proviso to section

MAXXIS RUBBER INDIA PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

45,955 - - 4 13 Additional depreciation, if any, on 64,83,02,170 - - 7 14 Additional depreciation relating to 1,56,00,22,181 - - immediately preceding year' on asset put to use for less than 180 days 15 Total depreciation 5,29,41,01,183 - 11,07,99,883 (10+11+12+13+14) 16 Depreciation disallowed under - - section

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 41(1) has no application to non payment of disputed amount. It be so held now. 4 Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance made by AO of Rs. 1,14,999/- depreciation claimed with respect to closed unit. Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted disallowance of depreciation claimed of unit forming part

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 41(1) has no application to non payment of disputed amount. It be so held now. 4 Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance made by AO of Rs. 1,14,999/- depreciation claimed with respect to closed unit. Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted disallowance of depreciation claimed of unit forming part