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. In the present case, the ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 37 goodwill represents the expected future economic benefits arising from business consolidation, synergy, and operational continuity — all recognized aspects of goodwill under law. Revised Ground No. 7: 65. The Department seeks to apply Explanation 7 to section 43(1), sixth proviso to section 32(1), section

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:-

depreciation. In the present case, the goodwill represents the expected future economic benefits arising from business consolidation, synergy, and operational continuity — all recognized aspects of goodwill under law. Revised Ground No. 7: 65. The Department seeks to apply Explanation 7 to section 43(1), sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), and Explanation 2 to section

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

66,02,772/-. The balance additional depreciation of Rs.156,00,22,181/- was carried forward to be claimed in assessment year 2018-19 as per the third proviso to section

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

66. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT-A. 67. The assessee before Ld. CIT-A submitted that outstanding amount relates to purchase of motor car. Therefore, the provision of Section 41(1) will not apply as the same is capital in nature. Further, the provision of Section 41(1) are not applicable to the amount

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

66. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT-A. 67. The assessee before Ld. CIT-A submitted that outstanding amount relates to purchase of motor car. Therefore, the provision of Section 41(1) will not apply as the same is capital in nature. Further, the provision of Section 41(1) are not applicable to the amount

ATUL LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT (OSD), RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Took Us Through The Chronology Of Events Leading To The Rectification Order Passed U/S. 154 Of The Act ,Which Was Carried In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Same & Against Which The Assessee Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us. Ld. Counsel For The

66,83,892/- 3)6xpenditure disallowed U/S.14A as per para 6 14,00,410/- 4) Irrecoverable balance written off as per para 7 16,26,668/- 5) Bad as per para 8 7,61,883/- Rs. 5,75,53,262/- Revised business income: Rs. 1,94,97,014/- Short term capital gain Rs. 1,78,55,920/- Income from House

DIAMINES & CHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE PR. CIT- 1, BARODA

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara-1, and another order dated 13.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax I.T.A No. 1472/Ahd/2015 & 219/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 Diamines & Chemicals Ltd. vs. DCIT (Appeals)-1, Vadodara giving effect to the revision order

DIAMINES AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara-1, and another order dated 13.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax I.T.A No. 1472/Ahd/2015 & 219/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 Diamines & Chemicals Ltd. vs. DCIT (Appeals)-1, Vadodara giving effect to the revision order

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 115JB of the IT Act despite the fact that in all the earlier years the additions have been deleted. 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming that the appellant is not eligible for additional depreciation amounting to Rs.49,52,66

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 115JB of the IT Act despite the fact that in all the earlier years the additions have been deleted. 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming that the appellant is not eligible for additional depreciation amounting to Rs.49,52,66

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 115JB of the IT Act despite the fact that in all the earlier years the additions have been deleted. 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming that the appellant is not eligible for additional depreciation amounting to Rs.49,52,66

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 115JB of the IT Act despite the fact that in all the earlier years the additions have been deleted. 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming that the appellant is not eligible for additional depreciation amounting to Rs.49,52,66

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

section 236 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956) carried out in a recognised stock exchange;] shall not be deemed to be a speculative transaction. ITA Nos. 464 & 546/Ahd/2022 Assessee- NK Proteins Ltd Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 15– The provisions of said Act are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case, hence the same cannot

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

section 236 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956) carried out in a recognised stock exchange;] shall not be deemed to be a speculative transaction. ITA Nos. 464 & 546/Ahd/2022 Assessee- NK Proteins Ltd Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 15– The provisions of said Act are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case, hence the same cannot

SUZUKI MOTOR GUJARAT PVT LTD,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDANAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

66,02,772/-. The balance additional depreciation of Rs.156,00,22,181/- was carried forward to be claimed in assessment year 2018-19 as per the third proviso to section

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

section 115JB (2) of the Act, lower of the amount of the brought forward loss or unabsorbed depreciation as per books of accounts, is required to be reduced from the profit as per profit and loss account. The working of unabsorbed business loss of Rs. 3,56,51,941 reduced from the profit by the assessee was given as under

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

66,83,892/- which accordingly was denied to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the A.O’s Act of allowing depreciation in Assessment Year 2001-02 had been confirmed by the ITAT. Noting the same he therefore, upheld the order of the A.O. in allowing depreciation to the assessee on the reduced value of WDV worked out accordingly

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ATUL LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

66,83,893/-, the appellant claimed depreciation under the bonafide tax audit report on the fact that appellant didn't claimed-depreciation in A.Y. 01-02 thrusted by A.O. in the asstt. order for A.Y. 01-02, hence there is difference of WDV and claim. Apart from various explanation and facts against penalty imposition, appellant relied on the order

INTAS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 865/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Intas The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Income Tax Vs. Plot 423/P/A, Sarkhej Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Bavla Highway, Moraiya, Sanand, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 382213 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci4722M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Bandish Soparkar & Shri Parin अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shah, Ars. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr & Shri Ashish Rajesh Revar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 20.01.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. Ita No. 865/Ahd/2016 [Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Dcit] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 –

depreciation allowance in respect of the same be eligible to the assessee company commencing from the year of put to use of relevant assets. 4. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. the learned assessing officer has grossly erred and the Ld. CIT A has grossly erred in confirming in making further disallowance