SHREE ALEKH,BHAVNAGAR vs. PCIT AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

depreciation was justly claimed. 4. The Id. PCIT has further erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the view taken by the AO is a possible view and hence the proceedings are illegal and bad in law. 5. The Id. PCIT has further erred in law in not coming to any concrete conclusion and without conducting

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

69A, alternatively under section 68, and taxed the same under section 115BBE. The CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order. The assessee contends that the proper opportunity was not given and seeks a chance to explain the nature and source of such credits. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of CIT(A), the assessee has raised the following grounds

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

69A,\nalternatively under Section 68, and taxed the same under Section 115BBE. The\nCIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order. The assessee contends that the proper\nopportunity was not given and seeks a chance to explain the nature and\nsource of such credits.\n5. Aggrieved by the orders of CIT(A), the assessee has raised the\nfollowing grounds

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

69A,\nalternatively under section 68, and taxed the same under section 115BBE. The\nCIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order. The assessee contends that the proper\nopportunity was not given and seeks a chance to explain the nature and\nsource of such credits.\n5.\nAggrieved by the orders of CIT(A), the assessee has raised the\nfollowing grounds

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

69A,\nalternatively under section 68, and taxed the same under section 115BBE. The\nCIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order. The assessee contends that the proper\nopportunity was not given and seeks a chance to explain the nature and\nsource of such credits.\n5. Aggrieved by the orders of CIT(A), the assessee has raised the\nfollowing grounds

SHALBY LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.793/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

depreciation is not directly relatable to the undertakings transferred to the resulting company, be apportioned between the demerged company and the resulting company in the same proportion in which the assets of the undertakings have been retained by the demerged company and transferred to the resulting company, and be allowed to be carried forward and set off in the hands

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE) -1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation to 15%, whereas Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. 16. On going through the facts of the instant case, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference. 17. In the result, ground number 3 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed. Assessment year

MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation to 15%, whereas Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. 16. On going through the facts of the instant case, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference. 17. In the result, ground number 3 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed. Assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation to 15%, whereas Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. 16. On going through the facts of the instant case, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference. 17. In the result, ground number 3 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed. Assessment year

SACHCHADE FOOD PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 89/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 Sachchade Food Private Limited, P.C.I.T., 407/3, New Ahmedabad Industrial Vs. Ahmedabad-3, Estate, Ahmedabad. Village: Moraiya Tal. Sanand, Ahmedabad-382213. Pan: Aatcs9292G

depreciation claimed in the revised return was therefore required to be deleted. The A.O. had failed to examine this issue during the course of assessment and as such order passed by the A.O. was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on his account. 8. During the course of proceedings u/s. 263, the assessee was also asked to explain

THE ITO WARD-5(3)(1) (PREVIOUSLY THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2)), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. INDUMATIBEN RUGNATH TANNA, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation based on the WDV of those assets whose bills are provided in the remand proceedings for earlier assessment years. Thus this Ground does not require any further adjudication. 26. Ground No.9 is disallowance of deduction claimed under Chapter VI A. Ld Counsel stated that he is NOT PRESSING this Ground, recording the same Ground No.9 is hereby dismissed

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. INDUMATIBEN RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation based on the WDV of those assets whose bills are provided in the remand proceedings for earlier assessment years. Thus this Ground does not require any further adjudication. 26. Ground No.9 is disallowance of deduction claimed under Chapter VI A. Ld Counsel stated that he is NOT PRESSING this Ground, recording the same Ground No.9 is hereby dismissed

SMT. RITABEN SAKETKUMAR TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation based on the WDV of those assets whose bills are provided in the remand proceedings for earlier assessment years. Thus this Ground does not require any further adjudication. 26. Ground No.9 is disallowance of deduction claimed under Chapter VI A. Ld Counsel stated that he is NOT PRESSING this Ground, recording the same Ground No.9 is hereby dismissed

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. RITABEN SAKETKUMAR TANNA, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation based on the WDV of those assets whose bills are provided in the remand proceedings for earlier assessment years. Thus this Ground does not require any further adjudication. 26. Ground No.9 is disallowance of deduction claimed under Chapter VI A. Ld Counsel stated that he is NOT PRESSING this Ground, recording the same Ground No.9 is hereby dismissed

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation based on the WDV of those assets whose bills are provided in the remand proceedings for earlier assessment years. Thus this Ground does not require any further adjudication. 26. Ground No.9 is disallowance of deduction claimed under Chapter VI A. Ld Counsel stated that he is NOT PRESSING this Ground, recording the same Ground No.9 is hereby dismissed

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation based on the WDV of those assets whose bills are provided in the remand proceedings for earlier assessment years. Thus this Ground does not require any further adjudication. 26. Ground No.9 is disallowance of deduction claimed under Chapter VI A. Ld Counsel stated that he is NOT PRESSING this Ground, recording the same Ground No.9 is hereby dismissed

SHRI ANILBHAI HIRALAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

69A of the Act as application of income. 15 Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts confirming addition of Rs. 45 lakh as income from managing IPO of Ankit Metal & Power Ltd (AMPL). 16 Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts confirming addition of income of Rs. 9 lakh (90000 shares @ Rs.10/) received from Vigneshwara Exports

KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.(OSD),CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an 46[undertaking], any machinery or plant

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an 46[undertaking], any machinery or plant