GUJARAT INFRAPIPES PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

50C of the Act 6,71,29,538/- (vi) Disallowance on account of Excess Depreciation 4,58,137/- Claimed on Software Licenses (vii) Capitalization of Interest on Capital Work in Progress 47,37,168/- (viii) Disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act 60,517/-. 2.1. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee as Rs.7

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.

section 50C of the Act which is verifiable from computation of total income attached herewith vide Annexure-5. 5. Details of Claim u/s.32(1) (iia) of Act (Sr. No.7) We have not claimed any additional depreciation

RAMESHBHAI ARVINDBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

50C of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee drew attention to pages 16 to 16 A of the paper book which is the distance certificated and population certificate issued by “Talati cum mantri” in respect of the impugned land. He further drew attention to page 30 of paper book containing the Google Maps showing the relevant distance

RAMESHBHAI ARVINDBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

50C of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee drew attention to pages 16 to 16 A of the paper book which is the distance certificated and population certificate issued by “Talati cum mantri” in respect of the impugned land. He further drew attention to page 30 of paper book containing the Google Maps showing the relevant distance

SHRI ASHOK NATVARLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

depreciation. These facts were totally ignored by the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A). Merely not objecting cannot be the criteria as per Section 50C

SHRI HEMANG CHIMANBHAI POKAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

50C of the Act. Thus the Ld.PCIT has found the assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act erroneous on an issue which did not form the basis of reopening the case of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act. 6. We find merit in the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that the assessment order passed

M/S. SHILP GRAVURES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation. However, the plant & machinery in previous assessment year was put to use for less than 180 days therefore the assessee claimed only 50% of such additional claim in the immediate previous year and remaining 50% claimed in the year under consideration. The claim made in previous assessment year for 50% amount has been allowed therefore remaining 50% should also

SHRI HARAPALSINH B CHUDASAMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16

depreciation on Motor Car and Vehicle on interest expenses. After going through the details filed related to the cash deposit aggregating to Rs.16,80,000/-, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Act dated 03.11.2017 to the Bank and the Bank responded the same. After considering assessee’s reply, the Assessing Officer observed that cash flow

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BAJAJ HERBALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is, thus, allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

depreciation of Rs. 2,11,723/- by deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO. So far as the expenses of the Rs. 39,663/- claimed on the running of the vehicle is concerned, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied so as to the claim made by the assessee by demonstrating that the whole expenses

SHRI PRAVINCHANDRA R PATEL,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

depreciation amounting to Rs.7 Lacs. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 77. The last issue raised by the assessee is general and connected with above grounds. Therefore, the same does not require any separate adjudication. Hence, the same is being dismissed as infructuous. 78. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Page

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

depreciation amounting to Rs.7 Lacs. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 77. The last issue raised by the assessee is general and connected with above grounds. Therefore, the same does not require any separate adjudication. Hence, the same is being dismissed as infructuous. 78. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Page

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

depreciation amounting to Rs.7 Lacs. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 77. The last issue raised by the assessee is general and connected with above grounds. Therefore, the same does not require any separate adjudication. Hence, the same is being dismissed as infructuous. 78. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Page