THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI AGRO PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs

carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before us. ITA Nos. 182, 557 & 1916/Ahd/2012 Assessment years: 2008-09 & 2006-07 Page 3 of 14 5. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us.

loss returned by the assessee pertained to unabsorbed depreciation or otherwise. Noting so, we shall now proceed to adjudicate the appeal before us. 4. As transpires from the orders of the authorities below, the AO in the present case passed a rectification order u/s.154 of the Act disallowing carry forward

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VINI COSMETIC PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of brought forward loss not amounting to concealment by the assessee. In fact, all the material facts in the form of schedule relating to brought forward and carried

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

Disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation under MAT Provisions. 53.1 The assessee had incurred loss of Rs.16,99,67,977/- in the F.Y. 2008-09 which comprises of depreciation of Rs.8,33,09,277/- and loss of Rs.8,66,58,700/- which has been carried forward

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. KIRI INDUSTRIES LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the adjustment made in the intimation under section 143(1) dated August 13, 2017 denying carry forward of loss of Rs

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

loss at Rs. 30,50,51,409/- after disallowing the carry forward loss of Rs. 65,39,53,132/-, on the ground

M/S. KOSA CONSTRUCTION,,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3),, VADODARA

In the result, all the grounds appeal of the assessee are allowed

losses of Rs. 57,28,806/- (Rs. 70,78,123 - Rs. 13,49,317) not claimed in the original return of income was not allowed to be carried forward and set off in the subsequent assessment year. 5. Aggrieved assesse has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has sustained the disallowance

RATNAM METALS & TUBES LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2081/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

carried forward losses of the eligible unit on stand-alone basis. Thus he makes an addition of Rs.3,05,59,000/- disallowing

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASMAN INVESTMENT LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

carry forward losses which had accrued under the repealed 1922 Act, is not saved expressly by section 297. But, it is not necessary to save a right expressly in order to keep it alive after the repeal of the ITA No. 291 & C.O. 162/Ahd/2014 7 . A.Y. 2006-07 1922 Act. Section 6(c) saves accrued rights unless they are taken

IRM TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2853/Ahd/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

Loss does not appear in the statutory firm for filing ROI, the benefit of ambiguity must go in favour of the assessee in so far as penalty proceedings are concerned. Consequently, we find merit in plea of assessee for cancellation of penalty on additions made owing to disallowance of carry IRM Trust vs. ACIT Asst.Year – 2008-09 forward

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CIMS HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance made u/s 40A(2)(b) by the Learned CIT(A) before us. 25. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that it is the case of the appellant that since there was sufficient carried forward loss

CIMS HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance made u/s 40A(2)(b) by the Learned CIT(A) before us. 25. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that it is the case of the appellant that since there was sufficient carried forward loss

KHIMJI RAMDAS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2) PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.500/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Khimji Ramdas India Pvt. Ltd., The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, City Square Godrej Ahmedabad, Vs. Garden City, Jagatpur, Present Jurisdiction Ahmedabad-382470 The Dcit, Pan : Aadck 6056 C Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Aatish Shah, Ar & Shri Anil N. Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Hishikes Hemant Patki, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 12.05.2023 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under:- “1. The Ld. Ao Wd. 2(1)(2) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Impugned Order Which Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed & The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Have Similarly Cit(A) Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Impugned Order Vide His Order Passed Us.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Appeal Vide His Order Dtd.12-05-2023 Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052777862(1) Dtd. 12/05/2023. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Without Considering/Adjudicating

disallowance of loss of Rs.2719302 out of the total business loss eligible for carry forward as determined by the Hon'ble CIT(A) of Rs.35

THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CHAMPALAL GOPIRAM AGARWAL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed

forward of the loss of Rs. 43,54,574/- only. 5. On appeal by the assessee the learned CIT-A deleted the disallowances made by the AO by observing as under: As regards ground no.2 it is relating to the disallowance of carried

CIL NOVA PETROCHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.707/Ahd/2016 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2374/Ahd/2018 नि◌धा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Cil Nova Petrochemicals Ltd., Pr.C.I.T., 391/396 Moraiya Village, Vs. Range-1, Sarkhej-Bavla Highway, Ahmedabad. Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210. Pan: Aadcn0932G

carried forward by the Revenue in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10. In other words, such impugned losses in the year under consideration represents the brought forward amounts from the earlier years. This fact can be verified from the submission of the assessee before ITA nos.707 & 2374/AHD/2016

RAINBOW PAPERS LIMITED.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

carried forward loss of this Unit. 2. Ground no.1 with regard to that ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance

M/S. ANIL DYECHEM INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

disallowing the claim of carry forward of brought forward capital loss pertaining to AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08 of Rs.3

RAJENDRA SHIP BREAKERS PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2177/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Rajendra Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., D-79, Kalvibid, Vs. Circle-1, Nr. Ram Mantra Mandir, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364002. Pan: Aabcr0105P

carry forward of the assessed unabsorbed depreciation and business loss to the succeeding year(s). 2. The 1st issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in not allowing the adjustment of lower of the unabsorbed depreciation or business losses while calculating book profit under MAT provision. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT.,CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed the claim of deduction of the assessee by considering the carry forward losses of the eligible unit from the date