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(1)(ii), and that depreciation claimed thereon is allowable in law, subject only to the proportionate restriction of Rs.52,69,97,415/- in respect of the Dehradun unit as correctly computed and sustained by the first appellate authority. 58

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

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act with respect to the aforesaid amount of Rs. 16,58,76,000/- as being

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

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 32(1)(ii), and that depreciation claimed thereon is allowable in law, subject only to the proportionate restriction of Rs.52,69,97,415/- in respect of the Dehradun unit as correctly computed and sustained by the first appellate authority. 58

THE DY. CIT., ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. M/S. KAIRA DIST. CO.-OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2218/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T, M/S. Kaira District Co-Op. Milk, Anand Circle, Vs. Producers Union Ltd., Anand. Amul Dairy Road, Anand-388001. Pan: Aaaak8694F

depreciation and delete the addition of Rs, 1,58,29,479/- without appreciating that " In terns of section 32(1), additional

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

58 taxmann.com 62]: Section 28(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business income -Chargeable as (Carbon credits) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Appellant, engaged in business of generation of power and sale of transformers, credited income from sale of carbon credits-to its sister concern instead of crediting amount in profit and loss account - It claimed said amount as deduction

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

58 taxmann.com 62]: Section 28(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business income -Chargeable as (Carbon credits) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Appellant, engaged in business of generation of power and sale of transformers, credited income from sale of carbon credits-to its sister concern instead of crediting amount in profit and loss account - It claimed said amount as deduction

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

58 taxmann.com 62]: Section 28(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business income -Chargeable as (Carbon credits) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Appellant, engaged in business of generation of power and sale of transformers, credited income from sale of carbon credits-to its sister concern instead of crediting amount in profit and loss account - It claimed said amount as deduction

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

BAKERI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Bakeri Projects Pvt. Lt. The Dcit, Cir.(1)(1) 1St Floor, Sanskrut Vs. Ahmedabad. Old High Court Road Off: Ashram Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aagcb 1864 L (Applicant) (Responent)

section 263 of the Act. In the said order, the Ld. PCIT observed that the AO had failed to verify the quantum of unabsorbed depreciation available for set off and had mechanically allowed the claim of Rs.48,03,58

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

58,654/- instead of correct depreciation of Rs. 15,78,62,118/- 5. The AO has erred in not granting additional depreciation on the addition to oil well and oil field equipment on ground of maintaining consistency with earlier years, it is submitted it be so held now. 6. The learned AO erred in law and facts in disallowing claim

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

58,654/- instead of correct depreciation of Rs. 15,78,62,118/- 5. The AO has erred in not granting additional depreciation on the addition to oil well and oil field equipment on ground of maintaining consistency with earlier years, it is submitted it be so held now. 6. The learned AO erred in law and facts in disallowing claim

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

58,654/- instead of correct depreciation of Rs. 15,78,62,118/- 5. The AO has erred in not granting additional depreciation on the addition to oil well and oil field equipment on ground of maintaining consistency with earlier years, it is submitted it be so held now. 6. The learned AO erred in law and facts in disallowing claim

THE DCIT, CIR-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

depreciation to the assessee on closing WDV as decided in A.Y. 2003-04. Hence, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed.” 9.1 Respectfully following the above-referred decision of the Tribunal, rendered in the assessee’s own case and consistently applied in subsequent years, and in the absence of any material change in facts or legal position

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

depreciation to the assessee on closing WDV as decided in A.Y. 2003-04. Hence, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed.” 9.1 Respectfully following the above-referred decision of the Tribunal, rendered in the assessee’s own case and consistently applied in subsequent years, and in the absence of any material change in facts or legal position

NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

depreciation to the assessee on closing WDV as decided in A.Y. 2003-04. Hence, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed.” 9.1 Respectfully following the above-referred decision of the Tribunal, rendered in the assessee’s own case and consistently applied in subsequent years, and in the absence of any material change in facts or legal position

JT. CTI (OSD), CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

depreciation to the assessee on closing WDV as decided in A.Y. 2003-04. Hence, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed.” 9.1 Respectfully following the above-referred decision of the Tribunal, rendered in the assessee’s own case and consistently applied in subsequent years, and in the absence of any material change in facts or legal position

ASCENT FINECHEM PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent (S) Appellant Respondent 1-2 438-439/Ahd/2018 2008-09 Ascent Finechem Pvt. A.C.I.T, Circle- & Ltd., 1(1)(2), 2009-10 11, Ground Floor, Ahmedabad. Suryarath, B/H. Whilte House, Panchawati, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan No.Aabca6349Q

58 of the paper book. The learned AR also claimed that it has claimed depreciation on storage tank considering the same as plant and machinery in the assessment year 2008-09 which was also allowed by the AO in the assessment framed under section