THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

disallowance of loss of Rs 32,50,27,494/- made by AO is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 8.5 We have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. The learned DR in support of the Revenue’s case on this issue has mainly relied

ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

disallowance of loss of Rs 32,50,27,494/- made by AO is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 8.5 We have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. The learned DR in support of the Revenue’s case on this issue has mainly relied

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal I.T

disallowed needs to be re-worked as various types of expenditure which are fully allowable during the year are included in addition of block of assets, computers and similarly there are various machines which are actually eligible for depreciation @ 60% have been subjected to depreciation @ 15% only. We further observe that ld. CIT(A) has looked into this aspect

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, appeal I.T

disallowed needs to be re-worked as various types of expenditure which are fully allowable during the year are included in addition of block of assets, computers and similarly there are various machines which are actually eligible for depreciation @ 60% have been subjected to depreciation @ 15% only. We further observe that ld. CIT(A) has looked into this aspect

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. APPLITECH SOLUTION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallow our claim of depreciation so as to enable us to provide further satisfactory evidence". (6) It is also found that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the appellant has produced all the material before the AO as may be perused from the detailed order sheet entry dated 11.03.2005, which reads as under: "11/03/05......Attended Shri. Manan Shah

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

assessment order as reproduced below: 4.10 As has been discussed above in this case, there exists a proximate relationship between the expenses claimed and the exempt income. As the assessee has actually incurred expenditure and not disallowed any expenditure under section 14 A as per the method laid down in Rule 8D, the undersigned is not satisfied with the correctness

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

block of “Plant & machinery” which covers all the office equipment. The Appellant has not established how such expenditure are allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37 of the Act hence it is held that Assessing Officer is justified in treating the expenditure as capital expenditure. However, while passing the assessment order, Assessing Officer has not allowed depreciation on above expenditure treated

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

block of “Plant & machinery” which covers all the office equipment. The Appellant has not established how such expenditure are allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37 of the Act hence it is held that Assessing Officer is justified in treating the expenditure as capital expenditure. However, while passing the assessment order, Assessing Officer has not allowed depreciation on above expenditure treated

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

block of “Plant & machinery” which covers all the office equipment. The Appellant has not established how such expenditure are allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37 of the Act hence it is held that Assessing Officer is justified in treating the expenditure as capital expenditure. However, while passing the assessment order, Assessing Officer has not allowed depreciation on above expenditure treated

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

block assessment under section 153A;\nii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated;\niii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of\nunabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to\nassess or reassess the ‘total income' taking into consideration the\nincriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material\navailable with the AO including the income

TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

assessment year 2016- 17 and good will was recognized in assessee’s company books of account which was the difference between the consideration paid by the company and net value of the asset taken over during the process of amalgamation. The ld. Pr. CIT was of the view that in the erstwhile Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Troikaa Export

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ( ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED),BARODA vs. THE ACIT,CENT.CIRCLE-1, BARODA

disallowed. 10.2.3.2 Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the assesses was asked during assessment proceedings various queries relating to its claim u/s 801B/IC of the 1. T. Act, 1961. 10.3.0 The assessee was asked to justify the following during the course of assessment proceedings: i. Justification of claim u/s. 80IB/IC ii. Details of products manufactured u/s. 80IB/1C

THE ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Assessing Officer regarding disallowance of grant of Rs. 54,71,000/- to various Unions and federations claimed as deductible expenditure u/s. 36(1)(xii) of the Income Tax Act after relying on the order of the ITAT in the appellant's own case for AY 2003-04. 3.1 Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) erred in not giving

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Assessing Officer regarding disallowance of grant of Rs. 54,71,000/- to various Unions and federations claimed as deductible expenditure u/s. 36(1)(xii) of the Income Tax Act after relying on the order of the ITAT in the appellant's own case for AY 2003-04. 3.1 Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) erred in not giving

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Assessing Officer regarding disallowance of grant of Rs. 54,71,000/- to various Unions and federations claimed as deductible expenditure u/s. 36(1)(xii) of the Income Tax Act after relying on the order of the ITAT in the appellant's own case for AY 2003-04. 3.1 Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) erred in not giving

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ACIT.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Assessing Officer regarding disallowance of grant of Rs. 54,71,000/- to various Unions and federations claimed as deductible expenditure u/s. 36(1)(xii) of the Income Tax Act after relying on the order of the ITAT in the appellant's own case for AY 2003-04. 3.1 Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) erred in not giving

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under consideration

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of Rs. 5,54,435/- being excess depreciation on electric installation, as the Assessing Officer was of the view that electrical installations are liable to ITA Nos. 1583&1585/Ahd/2024 Crest Speciality Resins Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (Now DCIT) Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2016-17 - 15– be included under the head “Furniture & Fittings” and hence depreciation on the same

SHALIGRAM INFRA PROJECTS LLP ( LTD. LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JCIT (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.167/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Vs. The Jcit (Osd) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Central Cir.2(2) B/H. Dishman House Ahmedabad. Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad. Pan: Acpfs 7047 A It(Ss)A No.194,195 & 196/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 The Jcit (Osd) Vs. Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Central Cir.2(2) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Ahmedabad. B/H. Dishman House Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad.

disallowances under section 40A(2)(b), and allowed the assessee’s appeals in full for both assessment years. 4. Aggrieved against the common appellate order for A.Y. 2015-16 and A.Y. 2016-17, the Revenue is in appeals before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 5. Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS)A No. 194/Ahd/2021