M/S. BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.),VAPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.219/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Bayer Vapi Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of V (Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Pvt. Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi. S. Ltd.,), 306/3, Iind Phase, Gidc, Vapi – 396 195. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcb 2100 L (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gopala Krishnan - Ca Respondent By : Shri S.T.Bidari-Cit(Dr) & Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To A.Y.2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Valsad Dated 29.01.2018 Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Dated 29.03.2016. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “01. The Order Of Assessment Is Contrary To The Facts & Prejudicial To The Assessee. 02. On Appreciation Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Additions Made By The Learned Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Are Contrary To Law & Based On Erroneous Understanding Of The Facts. 03. On Appreciation Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. In the light of above backdrop, and facts of the case and considering the same in totality, we are inclined to agree with the assessee that the AO and Ld. CIT (A) were not justified is disallowing depreciation claimed by the appellant company to the tune of Rs.2,25,14,448 on intangible

M/S. SHANGRILA LATEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Srt/2017 Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Physical Court Hearing) Shangrila Latex Industries Limited, Vs. The Acit, Circle-4, C/O. B.M. Parekh & Co., 203, 2Nd Surat. Floor, Navjivan Society, Bldg. No. 03, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaics1479E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sanjay S. Kapadia, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/07/2022 28/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

section 72 and 73, The manner of carry forward depreciation and business losses is different. 6.3.3. On the perusal of the details, it is observed that the appellant had credited Rs.10,36,75,766/- under the head 'miscellaneous income which included unpaid bank interest no longer payable' of Rs.10,13,16

M/S. BAYER VAPI PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,),VAPI vs. THE ADDL.CIT., VAPI RANGE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P. Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2912/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम M/S. Bayer Vapi Private Limited) Addl. Cit Range- (Formerly M/S. Bilag Industries Vs. Vapi, Range Vapi Pvt. Ltd.), 306/3,Phase-Ii, Shivam Commercial Complex Gidc-1, Vapi Gujarat. National Highway No 8 Vapi Pan: Aabcb 2100 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 40A (2) (b) is also not convincing because until the recent past, both companies had common promoters. Even in the year under assessment, few of the shareholders are common. Neither could the assessee company justified why it paid Rs.27.50 crores for what was essentially just land & building as per the books of Mitsu Ltd. Therefore, depreciation claimed of Rs.1

M/S. BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD.),VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for A

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P. Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No’S.2886/Ahd/2010, 794/Ahd/2014 & 1769/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 बनाम M/S. Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. , Addl. Cit Range- ( Now Known As M/S. Bayer Vapi Vs. Vapi, Range Vapi Private Limited) 306/3,Phase-Ii Shivam Commercial Complex Gidc-1, Vapi Gujarat National Highway No 8 Vapi Pan: Aabcb 2100 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A. Gopalakrishnan Aiyer - Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri O. P. Singh Cit (D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 26.09.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Captioned Three Appeals For The Assessment Year 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Dated 28.07.2010 & Dated 15.01.2014 Respectively Under The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] On The Direction Of Drp By The Addl. Cit Range-Vapi Range Vapi (Herein After Referred As The Ao) & The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2011-12 By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Dated 29.04.2016. Since The Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed As Under: It(Tp)A No.2886/Ahd/2010/A.Y. 2006-07/ By The Assessee: 2. Ground Nos.1 Is General In Nature & Do Not Require Adjudication.

section 40A (2) (b) is also not convincing because until the recent past, both companies had common promoters. Even in the year under assessment, few of the shareholders are common. Neither could the assessee company justified why it paid Rs.27.50 crores for what was essentially just land & building as per the books of Mitsu Ltd. Therefore, depreciation claimed of Rs.5

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.431/Srt/2018 (Ay 2007-08) & (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Bharuch, Fertilizers & Chemicals Vs Above Bank Of Baroda, Ltd. Station Road, Bharuch- P.O. Narmada Nagar, 320001 Dist. Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./Ita No.432/Srt/2018 & ""या"ेप/C.O. No.12/Srt/2021 [A/O Ita No.432/Srt/2018] (Ay 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Bharuch, Above Bank Of P.O. Narmada Nagar, Dist. Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q Bharuch-320001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent/Co- Objector

section 43(6)(c)(ii) requires that the written down value of “block of assets” is to be reduced by the written down value of the goodwill falling within the block. The Ld. AR for the assessee reiterates that amended proviso in withdrawal the depreciation not allowing goodwill will apply prospectively. ITA No.431-432/SRT/2018 & CO 12/SRT/2021 (A.Ys

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.431/Srt/2018 (Ay 2007-08) & (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Bharuch, Fertilizers & Chemicals Vs Above Bank Of Baroda, Ltd. Station Road, Bharuch- P.O. Narmada Nagar, 320001 Dist. Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./Ita No.432/Srt/2018 & ""या"ेप/C.O. No.12/Srt/2021 [A/O Ita No.432/Srt/2018] (Ay 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Bharuch, Above Bank Of P.O. Narmada Nagar, Dist. Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q Bharuch-320001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent/Co- Objector

section 43(6)(c)(ii) requires that the written down value of “block of assets” is to be reduced by the written down value of the goodwill falling within the block. The Ld. AR for the assessee reiterates that amended proviso in withdrawal the depreciation not allowing goodwill will apply prospectively. ITA No.431-432/SRT/2018 & CO 12/SRT/2021 (A.Ys

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.2(1)(1), SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD., SURAT

In the result, ground No.1& 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Assistant Commissioner The Surat District Co- Of Income Tax, Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Circle-2(1)(1), 1, Kanpith, Lalgate, Surat. Surat-395003 Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

16. We find that the assessee made a provision under section 36(1)(viia) of Rs. 7.16 Crore, the assessing Officer disallowed the claim to the extent of Rs.3.66 crores out of total claim of assessee under section 36(1)(viia) by taking view that the aforesaid amount under four heads are not provision for bad and doubtful debts

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of The Surat District Co- Income Tax Circle-2(2), Room Operative Bank Ltd. Vs No. 309, 3Rd Floor Aayakar Kanpith, Lalgate, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Surat-395003 395001 Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

section 67(2) of the Gujarat Co-Op. Society Act (out of net profit) Provision for bad and doubtful Rs. 50,00,000/- d) debts against standard assets Provision for bad and doubtful e) debts security depreciation fund Rs.1,50,00,000/- Provision for bad and doubtful Rs. 50,00,000/- f) debts investment depreciation fund TOTAL 7,16

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

depreciation of Rs. 3,10,022/-. 16. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer in disallowance of deduction under Section

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

depreciation of Rs. 3,10,022/-. 16. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer in disallowance of deduction under Section

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

depreciation of Rs. 3,10,022/-. 16. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer in disallowance of deduction under Section

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

depreciation of Rs. 3,10,022/-. 16. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer in disallowance of deduction under Section

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

depreciation of Rs. 3,10,022/-. 16. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer in disallowance of deduction under Section

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

depreciation of Rs. 3,10,022/-. 16. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer in disallowance of deduction under Section

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

depreciation of Rs. 3,10,022/-. 16. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer in disallowance of deduction under Section

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

depreciation of Rs. 3,10,022/-. 16. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer in disallowance of deduction under Section

THE ASSTT. CIT., CIRCLE - 2(2),, SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) The Surat District Co- Deputy Commissioner Of Operative Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Vs Kanpith, Lalgate, Circle-2(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Surat. Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

16. We find that the assessee made a provision under section 36(1)(viia) of Rs. 7.16 Crore, the assessing Officer disallowed the claim to the extent of Rs.3.66 crores out of total claim of assessee under section 36(1)(viia) by taking view that the aforesaid amount under four heads are not provision for bad and doubtful debts

THE ASSTT. CIT., CIRCLE - 2(2),, SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) The Surat District Co- Deputy Commissioner Of Operative Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Vs Kanpith, Lalgate, Circle-2(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Surat. Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

16. We find that the assessee made a provision under section 36(1)(viia) of Rs. 7.16 Crore, the assessing Officer disallowed the claim to the extent of Rs.3.66 crores out of total claim of assessee under section 36(1)(viia) by taking view that the aforesaid amount under four heads are not provision for bad and doubtful debts

THE SURAT DISTRICT CO. OP. BANK LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) The Surat District Co- Deputy Commissioner Of Operative Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Vs Kanpith, Lalgate, Circle-2(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Surat. Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

16. We find that the assessee made a provision under section 36(1)(viia) of Rs. 7.16 Crore, the assessing Officer disallowed the claim to the extent of Rs.3.66 crores out of total claim of assessee under section 36(1)(viia) by taking view that the aforesaid amount under four heads are not provision for bad and doubtful debts