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

2(1B) of the Act, which mandates that all properties and liabilities of the amalgamating company must vest in the amalgamated company, and shareholders of the amalgamating company must become shareholders of the amalgamated company to the extent of at least 75%. Reference was also made to Accounting Standard-14 issued by the ICAI, which permits recognition of goodwill

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

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

45. The assessee vide letter dated 31-03-2020 has raised the additional ground of appeal as reproduced hereunder: “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 2,51,50,281/- out of depreciation disallowed by AO of Rs. 2,74,83,963/-. Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, change

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

45. The assessee vide letter dated 31-03-2020 has raised the additional ground of appeal as reproduced hereunder: “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 2,51,50,281/- out of depreciation disallowed by AO of Rs. 2,74,83,963/-. Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, change

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, BARODA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

2 of assessee’s appeal in A.Y. 2014-15 is partly allowed. 44. As regards to Ground No. 3 relating to additional depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,29,83,978/- as per Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee submitted that during the year the assesse commissioned new plant and machinery

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, MEHSANA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

2 of assessee’s appeal in A.Y. 2014-15 is partly allowed. 44. As regards to Ground No. 3 relating to additional depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,29,83,978/- as per Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee submitted that during the year the assesse commissioned new plant and machinery

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 4, BARODA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

2 of assessee’s appeal in A.Y. 2014-15 is partly allowed. 44. As regards to Ground No. 3 relating to additional depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,29,83,978/- as per Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee submitted that during the year the assesse commissioned new plant and machinery

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

2 of assessee’s appeal in A.Y. 2014-15 is partly allowed. 44. As regards to Ground No. 3 relating to additional depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,29,83,978/- as per Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee submitted that during the year the assesse commissioned new plant and machinery

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, BARODA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

2 of assessee’s appeal in A.Y. 2014-15 is partly allowed. 44. As regards to Ground No. 3 relating to additional depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,29,83,978/- as per Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee submitted that during the year the assesse commissioned new plant and machinery

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, MEHSANA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

2 of assessee’s appeal in A.Y. 2014-15 is partly allowed. 44. As regards to Ground No. 3 relating to additional depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,29,83,978/- as per Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee submitted that during the year the assesse commissioned new plant and machinery

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, MEHSANA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

2 of assessee’s appeal in A.Y. 2014-15 is partly allowed. 44. As regards to Ground No. 3 relating to additional depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,29,83,978/- as per Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee submitted that during the year the assesse commissioned new plant and machinery

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation of Rs.132,47,53,370/- u/s.32 of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in holding that the goodwill has to be taken at NIL cost in the hands of the appellant. 7. Both the lower authorities have

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation of Rs.132,47,53,370/- u/s.32 of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in holding that the goodwill has to be taken at NIL cost in the hands of the appellant. 7. Both the lower authorities have

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation of Rs.132,47,53,370/- u/s.32 of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in holding that the goodwill has to be taken at NIL cost in the hands of the appellant. 7. Both the lower authorities have

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation of Rs.132,47,53,370/- u/s.32 of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in holding that the goodwill has to be taken at NIL cost in the hands of the appellant. 7. Both the lower authorities have

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 153B(1)(b) of the Act. 2. For issue-wise adjudication, we take first the appeal of the Revenue in IT(SS)A.No.27/Ahd/2021 for Asst. Year 2006-07. 3. IT(SS)A.No.27/Ahd/2021 : (Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 Ground No.1 : Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill

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

2,31,68,000/- + Rs. 1,16,00,000/-) as cost towards building and claimed depreciation on the same for the entire year. The AO disallowed the claim of the depreciation in earlier years by holding that having right to use property by virtue of acquiring share does not mean assessee becomes the owner of the building. Thus

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

2,31,68,000/- + Rs. 1,16,00,000/-) as cost towards building and claimed depreciation on the same for the entire year. The AO disallowed the claim of the depreciation in earlier years by holding that having right to use property by virtue of acquiring share does not mean assessee becomes the owner of the building. Thus

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

2,31,68,000/- + Rs. 1,16,00,000/-) as cost towards building and claimed depreciation on the same for the entire year. The AO disallowed the claim of the depreciation in earlier years by holding that having right to use property by virtue of acquiring share does not mean assessee becomes the owner of the building. Thus