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 for cash outflow. Revised Ground No. 5: 63. The DR argues that the method adopted by the assessee was effectively the pooling of interest method and not the purchase method under AS-14, and therefore the excess should have been credited to capital reserve. We do not find any merit in this argument. The assessee has clearly followed

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation claimed at Rs.5,55,52,000/- without appreciating the fact that, the same was not allowable as per the Company's Act and therefore, as per the provisions of the Section 115JB of the IT Act, such excess claim had to be disallowed and added back to the Book Profit. 4. The appellant craves to add to, amend

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation claimed at Rs.5,55,52,000/- without appreciating the fact that, the same was not allowable as per the Company's Act and therefore, as per the provisions of the Section 115JB of the IT Act, such excess claim had to be disallowed and added back to the Book Profit. 4. The appellant craves to add to, amend

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 for cash outflow. Revised Ground No. 5: 63. The DR argues that the method adopted by the assessee was effectively the pooling of interest method and not the purchase method under AS-14, and therefore the excess should have been credited to capital reserve. We do not find any merit in this argument. The assessee has clearly followed

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

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

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

depreciation under section 32(1)(ii). 5.5 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the computation and working of goodwill which was eventually furnished vide assessee’s letter dated 19.01.2016. The assessee submitted that goodwill was recognized in the books of RBHIL (merged entity) on account of amalgamation with RBIPFL. The total goodwill recognized

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

depreciation under section 32(1)(ii). 5.5 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the computation and working of goodwill which was eventually furnished vide assessee’s letter dated 19.01.2016. The assessee submitted that goodwill was recognized in the books of RBHIL (merged entity) on account of amalgamation with RBIPFL. The total goodwill recognized

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

depreciation under section 32(1)(ii). 5.5 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the computation and working of goodwill which was eventually furnished vide assessee’s letter dated 19.01.2016. The assessee submitted that goodwill was recognized in the books of RBHIL (merged entity) on account of amalgamation with RBIPFL. The total goodwill recognized

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

depreciation under section 32(1)(ii). 5.5 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the computation and working of goodwill which was eventually furnished vide assessee’s letter dated 19.01.2016. The assessee submitted that goodwill was recognized in the books of RBHIL (merged entity) on account of amalgamation with RBIPFL. The total goodwill recognized

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

63,672 57,07,462 77,71,134 Expenditure -18,59,929 -43,68,862 -62,28.791. Net Income 96,67,801 4,28,73,275 5,25,41,076 Actual receipt on sale of Nil Nil Nil CERs approved by UNFCC 41. While filing the return of income the assessee had excluded the income pertaining to CER and added

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

63,672 57,07,462 77,71,134 Expenditure -18,59,929 -43,68,862 -62,28.791. Net Income 96,67,801 4,28,73,275 5,25,41,076 Actual receipt on sale of Nil Nil Nil CERs approved by UNFCC 41. While filing the return of income the assessee had excluded the income pertaining to CER and added

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

63,672 57,07,462 77,71,134 Expenditure -18,59,929 -43,68,862 -62,28.791. Net Income 96,67,801 4,28,73,275 5,25,41,076 Actual receipt on sale of Nil Nil Nil CERs approved by UNFCC 41. While filing the return of income the assessee had excluded the income pertaining to CER and added

MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

depreciation being allowed to the tune of Rs.17,19,392/- on the said two assets. 5. With respect to disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act, the assessee was noted to have earned exempt income of Rs.1,63,692/- but no expenses incurred for earning the same was noted to be disallowed in terms of section

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 on goodwill. 6.6 Since the above amendments are applicable prospectively from the AY 2021-22, the appeal of the assessee on this issue for the AY 2012-13 is hereby allowed based on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Aculife Healthcare Pvt Ltd Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 15 (supra) and judgment

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 on goodwill. 6.6 Since the above amendments are applicable prospectively from the AY 2021-22, the appeal of the assessee on this issue for the AY 2012-13 is hereby allowed based on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Aculife Healthcare Pvt Ltd Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 15 (supra) and judgment

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 on goodwill. 6.6 Since the above amendments are applicable prospectively from the AY 2021-22, the appeal of the assessee on this issue for the AY 2012-13 is hereby allowed based on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Aculife Healthcare Pvt Ltd Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 15 (supra) and judgment

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 on goodwill. 6.6 Since the above amendments are applicable prospectively from the AY 2021-22, the appeal of the assessee on this issue for the AY 2012-13 is hereby allowed based on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Aculife Healthcare Pvt Ltd Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 15 (supra) and judgment