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

section 80-IC, the CIT(A) rightly held that 70% of the depreciation claimed—representing the portion not eligible for deduction—would be an effective addition to income. Accordingly, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs.52,69

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 80- IC, the CIT(A) rightly held that 70% of the depreciation claimed— representing the portion not eligible for deduction—would be an effective addition to income. Accordingly, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs.52,69

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

69 taxmann. com 394]: Section 28(1), read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act^ 1961 – Business income - Chargeable as (Carbon credit) - Assessment year 2009-10-Whether since carbon credit was generated out of environmental concerns and it was not having character of trading activity, receipt from sale of carbon credit was capital receipt and not business income - Held

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

69 taxmann. com 394]: Section 28(1), read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act^ 1961 – Business income - Chargeable as (Carbon credit) - Assessment year 2009-10-Whether since carbon credit was generated out of environmental concerns and it was not having character of trading activity, receipt from sale of carbon credit was capital receipt and not business income - Held

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

69 taxmann. com 394]: Section 28(1), read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act^ 1961 – Business income - Chargeable as (Carbon credit) - Assessment year 2009-10-Whether since carbon credit was generated out of environmental concerns and it was not having character of trading activity, receipt from sale of carbon credit was capital receipt and not business income - Held

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

69. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 70. The Ld. AR before us contended that loan liability was representing against the fixed assets being capital in nature. Therefore, the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act are not applicable in the given facts and circumstances

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

69. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 70. The Ld. AR before us contended that loan liability was representing against the fixed assets being capital in nature. Therefore, the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act are not applicable in the given facts and circumstances

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. A working of the total depreciation charged during the year under consideration is tabulated as under:- Block of assets Plant and Machinery S.No. 15 30 40 Rate (%) (i) (ii) (iii) 3a Written down value on the first day 14,19,66,02,772 - of previous year 3b Written down value on the first

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

ACIT ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD, VALLABH VIDYANAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us.

section 32(2) is that unabsorbed depreciation of a year becomes part of depreciation of subsequent year by legal fiction and when it becomes part of current year depreciation it is liable to be set off against any other income, irrespective of the fact that the earlier years return was filed in time or not.” 5.4 Respectfully following the decisions

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

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

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

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

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 43(1) of the Act indicates that the capital grant should be reduced from total grants /subsidies /consumer contribution of the particular asset and the same should be calculated accordingly. The Ld. DR could not point out any contrary facts to the same. Therefore it will be appropriate to remand back the issue to the file of the Assessing

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 43(1) of the Act indicates that the capital grant should be reduced from total grants /subsidies /consumer contribution of the particular asset and the same should be calculated accordingly. The Ld. DR could not point out any contrary facts to the same. Therefore it will be appropriate to remand back the issue to the file of the Assessing