ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. UNICORN PACKAGING LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

32(1) and Explanation 3 thereto, as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities Ltd., categorically held that goodwill so arising in the scheme of amalgamation is an “acquired” intangible asset and that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on such goodwill. 5.1. It is evident that the goodwill in respect of which depreciation

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. UNICORN PACKAGING LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

32(1) and Explanation 3 thereto, as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities Ltd., categorically held that goodwill so arising in the scheme of amalgamation is an “acquired” intangible asset and that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on such goodwill. 5.1. It is evident that the goodwill in respect of which depreciation

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. UNICORN PACKAGING PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

32(1) and Explanation 3 thereto, as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities Ltd., categorically held that goodwill so arising in the scheme of amalgamation is an “acquired” intangible asset and that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on such goodwill. 5.1. It is evident that the goodwill in respect of which depreciation

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. UNICORN PACKAGING LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

32(1) and Explanation 3 thereto, as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities Ltd., categorically held that goodwill so arising in the scheme of amalgamation is an “acquired” intangible asset and that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on such goodwill. 5.1. It is evident that the goodwill in respect of which depreciation

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. UNICORN PACKAGING LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

32(1) and Explanation 3 thereto, as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities Ltd., categorically held that goodwill so arising in the scheme of amalgamation is an “acquired” intangible asset and that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on such goodwill. 5.1. It is evident that the goodwill in respect of which depreciation

ACIT CC-1(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. UNICORN PACKAGING LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

32(1) and Explanation 3 thereto, as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities Ltd., categorically held that goodwill so arising in the scheme of amalgamation is an “acquired” intangible asset and that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on such goodwill. 5.1. It is evident that the goodwill in respect of which depreciation

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment. As per the second proviso to Section 153A, only pending assessment/reassessment shall stand abated and the AO would assume the jurisdiction with respect to such abated assessments. It does not provide that all completed/unabated assessments shall abate. If the submission on behalf

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment. As per the second proviso to Section 153A, only pending assessment/reassessment shall stand abated and the AO would assume the jurisdiction with respect to such abated assessments. It does not provide that all completed/unabated assessments shall abate. If the submission on behalf

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment. As per the second proviso to Section 153A, only pending assessment/reassessment shall stand abated and the AO would assume the jurisdiction with respect to such abated assessments. It does not provide that all completed/unabated assessments shall abate. If the submission on behalf

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)

section 14A was squarely covered by Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 178/283 Taxman 178/438 ITR 1/ [2021] 10 SCC 153 wherein it was held that since interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax-free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee's own funds