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

Depreciation on Goodwill 2,27,92,50,000 3 Disallowance due to Allocation of Common 10,19,24,003 Expenses (Inter-unit allocation) 4 Disallowance under Section

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

50% along with Rs.3,00,000/- which was donated to Divya Samaj Nirman Co. totaling to Rs.1,53,22,500/- has been disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. The corpus donation of Rs.16,03,22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia). The claim of an amount

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

50% along with Rs.3,00,000/- which was donated to Divya Samaj Nirman Co. totaling to Rs.1,53,22,500/- has been disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. The corpus donation of Rs.16,03,22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia). The claim of an amount

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

50% along with Rs.3,00,000/- which was donated to Divya Samaj Nirman Co. totaling to Rs.1,53,22,500/- has been disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. The corpus donation of Rs.16,03,22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia). The claim of an amount

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

50% along with Rs.3,00,000/- which was donated to Divya Samaj Nirman Co. totaling to Rs.1,53,22,500/- has been disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. The corpus donation of Rs.16,03,22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia). The claim of an amount

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

50 (P& H High Court) . Without prejudice to the above, it may be appreciated that the appellant is having enough share capital and reserves and surplus of the aggregate amount of Rs.2,60, 718 lakh as against investment in shares / mutual fund of only Rs. 19,510 lakh. Thus the appellant is having enough interest free funds

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciable assets. It begins with a non-obstante clause to Section 2(42A) of the Act. The provision of Section 50

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciable assets. It begins with a non-obstante clause to Section 2(42A) of the Act. The provision of Section 50

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciable assets. It begins with a non-obstante clause to Section 2(42A) of the Act. The provision of Section 50

SIRHIND STEELS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 713/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Sirhind Steel Ltd., P.C.I.T-4, 7Th Floor, Shalin Building, Vs. Ambawadi, Nr. Nehru Bridge Corner, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad.

2(11) defines "block of assets" which does not speak of depreciation having been allowed in the assessments in respect of any asset falling within the block of assets but refers only to the depreciation rates being prescribed in the rules. Section 50

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. MARKET CREATORS LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

50% of financial charges paid to the specified persons, but there was no categorical finding as to what is the fair market value of the services provided by these specified persons. Such an adhoc disallowance under section 40A(2)(b), in our considered view, is not permissible under the scheme of the Act. We, therefore, asked the parties to address

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 cannot be restricted to 50 % and it has to be allowed in succeeding years if it is not allowed full in the relevant year. For the sake of convenience the relevant portion of the order is as under: "17. We have heard both the sides on this issue. Section 32(1)(iia) inserted by Finance (No. 2

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 cannot be restricted to 50 % and it has to be allowed in succeeding years if it is not allowed full in the relevant year. For the sake of convenience the relevant portion of the order is as under: "17. We have heard both the sides on this issue. Section 32(1)(iia) inserted by Finance (No. 2

THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. KALPARATRU POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation cannot be restricted to 50 % and it has to be allowed in succeeding years if it is not allowed full in the relevant year. For the sake of convenience the relevant portion of the order is as under: "17. We have heard both the sides on this issue. Section 32(1)(iia) inserted by Finance (No. 2

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation cannot be restricted to 50 % and it has to be allowed in succeeding years if it is not allowed full in the relevant year. For the sake of convenience the relevant portion of the order is as under: "17. We have heard both the sides on this issue. Section 32(1)(iia) inserted by Finance (No. 2

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation cannot be restricted to 50 % and it has to be allowed in succeeding years if it is not allowed full in the relevant year. For the sake of convenience the relevant portion of the order is as under: "17. We have heard both the sides on this issue. Section 32(1)(iia) inserted by Finance (No. 2

BHARGAVKUMAR PARSOTTAMBHAI PATEL HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2023-24 Arun Gopilal Samnani The I.T.O., Ward-5(3)(1) 7, Bank Of Baroda Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. P.T. College Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aywps 2887 D Assessment Year :2023-24 Bhargavkumarparsottambh The I.T.O., Ward-1(2)(1) Ai Patel-Huf Vs Ahmedabad. B/301, 3Rd Floor Shree Saran-2 Opp: Anand Niketan School Thaltej, Ahmedabad 380089. Pan : Aalhb 2685 R

50,001 to Rs. 15,00,000 25 per cent 7. Above Rs. 15,00,000 30 per cent ITA No.2082 and 2083/Ahd/2024 7 Provided that where the person fails to satisfy the conditions contained in sub- section (2) in any previous year, the option shall become invalid in respect of the assessment year relevant to that previous year

ARUN GOPILAL SAMNANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2023-24 Arun Gopilal Samnani The I.T.O., Ward-5(3)(1) 7, Bank Of Baroda Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. P.T. College Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aywps 2887 D Assessment Year :2023-24 Bhargavkumarparsottambh The I.T.O., Ward-1(2)(1) Ai Patel-Huf Vs Ahmedabad. B/301, 3Rd Floor Shree Saran-2 Opp: Anand Niketan School Thaltej, Ahmedabad 380089. Pan : Aalhb 2685 R

50,001 to Rs. 15,00,000 25 per cent 7. Above Rs. 15,00,000 30 per cent ITA No.2082 and 2083/Ahd/2024 7 Provided that where the person fails to satisfy the conditions contained in sub- section (2) in any previous year, the option shall become invalid in respect of the assessment year relevant to that previous year