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

Section 32 of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 1998 and the assessee-company, therefore, was entitled to depreciation only @ 25% on computer software. He accordingly restricted the claim of the assessee for depreciation @ 25% and disallowed the excess depreciation of Rs.3,55,446/- allegedly claimed by the assessee. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition

DCIT, 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

Section 32 of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 1998 and the assessee-company, therefore, was entitled to depreciation only @ 25% on computer software. He accordingly restricted the claim of the assessee for depreciation @ 25% and disallowed the excess depreciation of Rs.3,55,446/- allegedly claimed by the assessee. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

disallowance made by AO amounting to Rs.1,89,56,798/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act for contravening the provision of section 195 of the IT Act by assessee. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. It is, therefore

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

disallowance made by AO amounting to Rs.1,89,56,798/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act for contravening the provision of section 195 of the IT Act by assessee. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. It is, therefore

GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

disallowance made by AO amounting to Rs.1,89,56,798/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act for contravening the provision of section 195 of the IT Act by assessee. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. It is, therefore

GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

disallowance made by AO amounting to Rs.1,89,56,798/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act for contravening the provision of section 195 of the IT Act by assessee. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. It is, therefore

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 14B had been allowed as compensatory in earlier assessment years, following judicial precedents, such as, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [233 ITR 199 (SC)]. The AR argued that judicial consistency should be maintained, and the disallowance

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 14B had been allowed as compensatory in earlier assessment years, following judicial precedents, such as, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [233 ITR 199 (SC)]. The AR argued that judicial consistency should be maintained, and the disallowance

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 14B had been allowed as compensatory in earlier assessment years, following judicial precedents, such as, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [233 ITR 199 (SC)]. The AR argued that judicial consistency should be maintained, and the disallowance

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 14B had been allowed as compensatory in earlier assessment years, following judicial precedents, such as, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [233 ITR 199 (SC)]. The AR argued that judicial consistency should be maintained, and the disallowance

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 14B had been allowed as compensatory in earlier assessment years, following judicial precedents, such as, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [233 ITR 199 (SC)]. The AR argued that judicial consistency should be maintained, and the disallowance

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 14B had been allowed as compensatory in earlier assessment years, following judicial precedents, such as, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [233 ITR 199 (SC)]. The AR argued that judicial consistency should be maintained, and the disallowance

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 14B had been allowed as compensatory in earlier assessment years, following judicial precedents, such as, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [233 ITR 199 (SC)]. The AR argued that judicial consistency should be maintained, and the disallowance

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 14B had been allowed as compensatory in earlier assessment years, following judicial precedents, such as, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [233 ITR 199 (SC)]. The AR argued that judicial consistency should be maintained, and the disallowance

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 14B had been allowed as compensatory in earlier assessment years, following judicial precedents, such as, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [233 ITR 199 (SC)]. The AR argued that judicial consistency should be maintained, and the disallowance

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance of expenses under Section 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.95,08,02,542/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income at Rs.344,58,43,400/- and in view of the MAT income under Section 45JB calculated the total income at Rs.281,99,19,779/-. ITA Nos.1787 & 2128/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 9 of 18 4. Being

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance of expenses under Section 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.95,08,02,542/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income at Rs.344,58,43,400/- and in view of the MAT income under Section 45JB calculated the total income at Rs.281,99,19,779/-. ITA Nos.1787 & 2128/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 9 of 18 4. Being

RASNA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT.,CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal ITA 2334/Ahd/2015 filed by assessee is partly allowed

disallowed by the Act. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd (supra) where it was held that debt need not be proved to be irrecoverable and it is sufficient if they are written off. The decisions in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. (supra) and Sri T. Pitamber