MURUGAN MUTTAIAH MADASAMY,,HYDERABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of the depreciation

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. S D MATERIAL HANDLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.499/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S S D Material Handlers Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat Vs. 405-408, Shivalik Western, L.P. Room No.612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Savani Road, Adajan Adajan Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Bo, Surat-395009 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccd 3481B (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

section 22(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal in this case has come to the conclusion on a review of the facts and also of the agreement that the assessee was the owner of the five new buses and as such was entitled to claim depreciation

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 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 and prejudicial to the assessee. 02. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the additions made by the Learned

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 32(2) of the Act was amended by Finance Act No.2 of 1996 w.e.f. A.Y. 1997-98 and the unabsorbed depreciation for the A.Y. 1997-98 could be carried forward up to the maximum period of 8 years from the year in which it was first computed. According to the Assessing Officer, 8 years expired

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BHARUCH vs. SNS TEXTILES LIMITED,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Sns Textiles Ltd. Income Tax Circle-2, 330-A, Opp. Atul Products Vs Bharuch, 2Nd Floor, Harikunj Ltd., Gidc, Ankleshwar- Building, Above Bank Of 393002 Baroda, Station Road, Pan : Aadcs 4565 N Bharuch-392001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

22,05,411 1998-99 depreciation loss 4,10,18,376 3 M/s SNS Textiles Ltd. 1999-00 depreciation loss 7,10,04,711 2000-01 Business loss 2,02,77,796 Total 14,21,23,846 4. The assessee has brought forward the depreciation loss pertains to AYs 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-00. The reason

KADODARA POWER PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.143/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2006-07 M/S. Kadodara Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No. 30-33& 60-63, Block Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat No.179/2, Kadodara Char Rasta, Palsana, Surat 394327 Pan: Aacck5249E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

22 taxmann.com 247 (Delhi) submitted that the process of generation of electricity is akin to manufacturing and production of an article or thing and the assessee is engaged in activity of generation of Kadodara Power Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT-1 Surat /I.T.A. No143 /Ahd/2016/A.Y.:06-07 Page 5 of 10 electricity would be entitled to additional depreciation under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXAMPTION) WARD, SURAT vs. SHREE SAIBABA SATSANG MANDAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation and amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act, vide Finance Act No. 2/2014 is effective from the Assessment Year 2015-2016. Hence, there is no infirmity in the order passed by ld CIT(A), therefore we approve and confirm the findings of Ld. CIT(A). Grounds No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8.Coming to ground No.3

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

22,24,655/- on account of depreciation on goodwill when in fact no goodwill was created on account of merger of Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Limited (NCPL) particularly when assessee itself was the promoter of NCPL.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company engaged in business of manufacturing, sale and trading of chemical fertilizers and chemical

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

22,24,655/- on account of depreciation on goodwill when in fact no goodwill was created on account of merger of Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Limited (NCPL) particularly when assessee itself was the promoter of NCPL.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company engaged in business of manufacturing, sale and trading of chemical fertilizers and chemical

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

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. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL COMPANY LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

depreciation in violation of section 43A of the Act which was not found to be sustainable during quantum proceedings. In our humble understanding, such a claim of assessee is clearly a act 7 ITA No’s.2658 to 2660/Ahd/2014/SRT (A.Y’s: 2006-07 to 2008-09) Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Co.Ltd. furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which attracts penalty u/s.271

M/S. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL COMPANY LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

depreciation in violation of section 43A of the Act which was not found to be sustainable during quantum proceedings. In our humble understanding, such a claim of assessee is clearly a act 7 ITA No’s.2658 to 2660/Ahd/2014/SRT (A.Y’s: 2006-07 to 2008-09) Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Co.Ltd. furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which attracts penalty u/s.271

M/S. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL COMPANY LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

depreciation in violation of section 43A of the Act which was not found to be sustainable during quantum proceedings. In our humble understanding, such a claim of assessee is clearly a act 7 ITA No’s.2658 to 2660/Ahd/2014/SRT (A.Y’s: 2006-07 to 2008-09) Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Co.Ltd. furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which attracts penalty u/s.271

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

22. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and deliberated on the various case laws relied by learned Senior Counsel. We find that during the assessment the AO raised quarry about the eligibility of deduction under section 80IA(4)(i) of eligible unit vide show cause notice dated 13.12.2011 (Para 5.4 of assessment order) . The assessee

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

22. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and deliberated on the various case laws relied by learned Senior Counsel. We find that during the assessment the AO raised quarry about the eligibility of deduction under section 80IA(4)(i) of eligible unit vide show cause notice dated 13.12.2011 (Para 5.4 of assessment order) . The assessee

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

22. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and deliberated on the various case laws relied by learned Senior Counsel. We find that during the assessment the AO raised quarry about the eligibility of deduction under section 80IA(4)(i) of eligible unit vide show cause notice dated 13.12.2011 (Para 5.4 of assessment order) . The assessee

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

22. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and deliberated on the various case laws relied by learned Senior Counsel. We find that during the assessment the AO raised quarry about the eligibility of deduction under section 80IA(4)(i) of eligible unit vide show cause notice dated 13.12.2011 (Para 5.4 of assessment order) . The assessee