THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VIJAY M. MISTRY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

disallowed on the basis of explanation inserted by Finance Act (No. 2) 2009. The inserted explanation is as follows, " Explanation- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to a business referred to in sub section (4) which is in nature of a works contract awarded by any person

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) have already been discussed and established that Depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under the existing provisions of the Income-tax Act. 1961 in the present set of circumstances which exists in this case. 5.8. Further, it has been held by no less than

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) have already been discussed and established that Depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under the existing provisions of the Income-tax Act. 1961 in the present set of circumstances which exists in this case. 5.8. Further, it has been held by no less than

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) have already been discussed and established that Depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under the existing provisions of the Income-tax Act. 1961 in the present set of circumstances which exists in this case. 5.8. Further, it has been held by no less than

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) have already been discussed and established that Depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under the existing provisions of the Income-tax Act. 1961 in the present set of circumstances which exists in this case. 5.8. Further, it has been held by no less than

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

section 80-IA of the Act. 64.1 However, the AO was of the view that no benefit of bad debts recovery can be granted by allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that the amount of bad debt was recognized by the assessee when its unit was not eligible for deduction under section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

section 80-IA of the Act. 64.1 However, the AO was of the view that no benefit of bad debts recovery can be granted by allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that the amount of bad debt was recognized by the assessee when its unit was not eligible for deduction under section

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with