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 :

43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) to hold that no depreciation could be allowed on goodwill arising in a tax-neutral amalgamation on the footing that there was no cost or that the cost in the hands of the amalgamating company was nil. 4. In appeal, the assessee inter alia pointed out before the learned

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 :

43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) to hold that no depreciation could be allowed on goodwill arising in a tax-neutral amalgamation on the footing that there was no cost or that the cost in the hands of the amalgamating company was nil. 4. In appeal, the assessee inter alia pointed out before the learned

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 :

43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) to hold that no depreciation could be allowed on goodwill arising in a tax-neutral amalgamation on the footing that there was no cost or that the cost in the hands of the amalgamating company was nil. 4. In appeal, the assessee inter alia pointed out before the learned

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 :

43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) to hold that no depreciation could be allowed on goodwill arising in a tax-neutral amalgamation on the footing that there was no cost or that the cost in the hands of the amalgamating company was nil. 4. In appeal, the assessee inter alia pointed out before the learned

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 :

43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) to hold that no depreciation could be allowed on goodwill arising in a tax-neutral amalgamation on the footing that there was no cost or that the cost in the hands of the amalgamating company was nil. 4. In appeal, the assessee inter alia pointed out before the learned

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 :

43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) to hold that no depreciation could be allowed on goodwill arising in a tax-neutral amalgamation on the footing that there was no cost or that the cost in the hands of the amalgamating company was nil. 4. In appeal, the assessee inter alia pointed out before the learned

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

43,244/-. These amounts need to be verified and corrected. 4.5 Aggrieved by the ex-parte reassessments, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) raising both jurisdictional and substantive grounds. It was submitted that the assessments were vitiated due to non- service of statutory notices, as the Department had sent all communications to an incorrect email

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

43,244/-. These amounts need to be verified and corrected. 4.5 Aggrieved by the ex-parte reassessments, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) raising both jurisdictional and substantive grounds. It was submitted that the assessments were vitiated due to non- service of statutory notices, as the Department had sent all communications to an incorrect email

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

43,244/-. These amounts need to be verified and corrected. 4.5 Aggrieved by the ex-parte reassessments, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) raising both jurisdictional and substantive grounds. It was submitted that the assessments were vitiated due to non- service of statutory notices, as the Department had sent all communications to an incorrect email

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

43,244/-. These amounts need to be verified and corrected. 4.5 Aggrieved by the ex-parte reassessments, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) raising both jurisdictional and substantive grounds. It was submitted that the assessments were vitiated due to non- service of statutory notices, as the Department had sent all communications to an incorrect email

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

43,244/-. These amounts need to be verified and corrected. 4.5 Aggrieved by the ex-parte reassessments, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) raising both jurisdictional and substantive grounds. It was submitted that the assessments were vitiated due to non- service of statutory notices, as the Department had sent all communications to an incorrect email

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

reassessment, as the case maybe, under the said sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be extended by twelve months. Section 153 of the Act does not permit passing any order after the expiry of 33 months from the end of the assessment year i.e. AY 2016-17 in the present case. Therefore, the time limit for completing assessment

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

43,977/- was treated as income from house property and added to the total income of the assessee. 14. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that provision of subsection (5) of section 23 was inserted by the Finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 01-04-2018. Therefore, such a provision is not applicable for the year

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

43,977/- was treated as income from house property and added to the total income of the assessee. 14. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that provision of subsection (5) of section 23 was inserted by the Finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 01-04-2018. Therefore, such a provision is not applicable for the year