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

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 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

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 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

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 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-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,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

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

AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

disallowed 20% of such ineligible expenses. Appellant submitted that 20% of the public issue expenses not in excess of 5% of total cost of project are eligible for deduction under section 35D [2). Since appellant incurred public issue expenses of RS 7,55,92,199

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

disallowed 20% of such ineligible expenses. Appellant submitted that 20% of the public issue expenses not in excess of 5% of total cost of project are eligible for deduction under section 35D [2). Since appellant incurred public issue expenses of RS 7,55,92,199

NIRMA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1) NOW DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nirma Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-380 009 Circle-3(1)(1), Pan : Aaacn 5350 K Ahmedabad-380009 अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 10.04.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Follows:-

disallowed purely on the ground that the amendment to section 244A sub- section (a) & (aa) of the Act was made w.e.f. 01.06.2016 since the present appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2013-14. Therefore, the amended provisions of section 244A of the Act could not be made applicable for the year under appeal. 9. We have perused the judgement

ANUPAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,ANAND vs. THE ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 43B, the assessee admitted that bonus of Rs. 30,69,781/- and professional tax of Rs. 3,65,795/- were not paid on time, and the CIT(A) upheld those disallowances. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s contention that the balance bonus of Rs. 19,15,199

ANUPAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,ANAND vs. THE ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 43B, the assessee admitted that bonus of Rs. 30,69,781/- and professional tax of Rs. 3,65,795/- were not paid on time, and the CIT(A) upheld those disallowances. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s contention that the balance bonus of Rs. 19,15,199