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

56. We have also noted the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Suzlon Energy Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA Nos. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 for A.Ys. 2016–17 and 2017–18, wherein the Tribunal allowed the claim of depreciation on goodwill arising on amalgamation of wholly-owned subsidiaries. In that case

M/S. SABARMATI GAS LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Sabarmati Gas Ltd. The Ld.Pr.Cit Plot No.907, Sector 21 Vs Ahmedabad-3. Gandhinagar 382 021 Pan : Aakcs 0110 N

depreciation, being mandatory deduction as per section 32 of the Act. (III) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 58,56

JAYSHRI PROPACK PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2015-16 Jayshri Propack P. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Cir.2(1)(2) Plot No.487/A88 Ahmedabad. B/H. Sushma Namkeen Tajpur Road, Changodar Taluka : Sanand, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaccj 159 J 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/07/2022

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, and the addition made in this regard amounted to Rs.45,48,583/- ,which after 2 adjusting brought-forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation

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:-

56. We have also noted the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Suzlon Energy Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA Nos. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 for A.Ys. 2016–17 and 2017–18, wherein the Tribunal allowed the claim of depreciation on goodwill arising on amalgamation of ACIT Vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Asst

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. M/S. GUJARAT INFRA PIPES PVT. LTD.,, VADODARA

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

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

56 of Income Tax Act or any other provisions of the Income Tax Act.” 14.1. Thus Ld. Counsel pleaded that the Assessing Officer is not correct in making the above addition invoking section 50C of the Act, which is liable to be deleted. 15. We have heard rival contentions at length and have given our thoughtful consideration and perused

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

56 of Income Tax Act or any other provisions of the Income Tax Act.” 14.1. Thus Ld. Counsel pleaded that the Assessing Officer is not correct in making the above addition invoking section 50C of the Act, which is liable to be deleted. 15. We have heard rival contentions at length and have given our thoughtful consideration and perused

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, GURGAON

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

56,123/- as against Rs.95,51,08,173/- claimed in the return of income, made by AO. d) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of deduction under section 80IC on scrap income of Rs.60,77,133/-, made by AO. e) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HARYANA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

56,123/- as against Rs.95,51,08,173/- claimed in the return of income, made by AO. d) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of deduction under section 80IC on scrap income of Rs.60,77,133/-, made by AO. e) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HARYANA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

56,123/- as against Rs.95,51,08,173/- claimed in the return of income, made by AO. d) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of deduction under section 80IC on scrap income of Rs.60,77,133/-, made by AO. e) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HARYANA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

56,123/- as against Rs.95,51,08,173/- claimed in the return of income, made by AO. d) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of deduction under section 80IC on scrap income of Rs.60,77,133/-, made by AO. e) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

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

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

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

depreciation does not arise. The Ld. DR relied upon assessment order. 9. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee claimed deduction amounting to Rs.3,56,51,941/- on account of clause (iii) to Explanation 1 to Section

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 397/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Dcit Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 532/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Acit, Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr Dr & Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 2(17) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Once it is accepted, the addition made by the AO by holding that Vega UAE is a sole proprietorship concern of the assesse company is not sustainable and hence, the addition made by the AO is to be deleted.” Therefore, respectfully following the ratio of the Hon’ble ITAT’s order

SOHAMNAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VIBHAG II,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(6), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 17-01-2023 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048850676(1)

56 as 'income from other services', it should have been allowed deduction under section 57(iii) while computing said income -Revenue authorities rejected assessee's claim-Whether eligibility for I.T.A No. 177/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No. 9 Sohamnagar Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. ITO deduction under section 57 (iii) arises only if expenditure has been laid out wholly

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation of Rs. 26,41,911/-. 49. Ground no. 3 is dismissed. 50. Ground no. 4 reads as under: 4. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s 14A rws Rule 8D of Rs.2,05,15,540/- 51. The issue relates to disallowance of expenses pertaining to exempt

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation of Rs. 26,41,911/-. 49. Ground no. 3 is dismissed. 50. Ground no. 4 reads as under: 4. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s 14A rws Rule 8D of Rs.2,05,15,540/- 51. The issue relates to disallowance of expenses pertaining to exempt

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation of Rs. 26,41,911/-. 49. Ground no. 3 is dismissed. 50. Ground no. 4 reads as under: 4. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s 14A rws Rule 8D of Rs.2,05,15,540/- 51. The issue relates to disallowance of expenses pertaining to exempt