THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Joshi Technologies The ACIT, International Inc India Circle (Intl Taxn) 1, Projects, 701 Vs Ahmedabad.

Parshwanath E. Square, Near Titanium Building, Prahladnagar Garden Satellite, Ahmedabad PAN: AAACJ9592P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.R.

Revenue by: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R.

Date of hearing : 25-09-2025 Date of pronouncement : 12-12-2025 आदशे /ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:

These three appeals filed are against the order dated 04-02-

2022 & 28-04-2022 passed by ACIT (Int. Taxn)-1, for assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20.

2. The grounds of appeals are as under:-

ITA No. 80/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2017-18

“Your Appellant being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assistant

Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (Int. Taxn. 1), Ahmedabad (hereafter

referred to as "AO"), u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax

Act (“the Act”) presents this appeal against the same on the following amongst other grounds of appeal which are without prejudice to each other.

1. The order passed by the Assessing officer w/s 143(3) in pursuance of the order of Dispute Resolution Panel us 144C, is erroneous and requires to be modified it is submitted that it be so held now.

2. The learned AO erred in disallowing claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(9) 11,7187,247/- without taking proper cognizance of the order of the Gujarat High Court and not following the same on the ground that Department has filed appeal to the Supreme Court is submitted it be so held now.

2.1 The learned AO has erred in stating that amended Explanation to 80IB(9) can be applied prospectively from FY 2009-10 without appreciating that Gujarat High Court has struck down the Explanation in appellant's own case.

It is submitted it be so held now.

2.2 The learned AO ought to have granted benefit u/s 80IB(9) in respect of oil wells considering them as separate undertaking as claimed by the appellant as it fulfills all the requirements of that section to be eligible to get such deduction, it is submitted that it be so held now.

2.3 The learned AO ought to grant deductions 801B(9) without set off of brought forward loss since those losses are already absorbed against the profits of company in earlier years, it is submitted that it be so held now.

2.4 The learned AO, without enquiring appellant to furnish any details in assessment proceedings, erred in stating that the commencement of commercial production for each well was not certified by any regulatory agency without appreciating that there is no such legal requirement. It is submitted it be so held now.

2.5 The learned AO erred in referring to provisions of section 80IA(8) and 80IA(10) even though the same are not applicable. It is submitted it be so held now.

2.6 The learned AO, without requiring appellant to furnish any details in assessment proceedings, erred in observing that apportionment of expenses has been done on mechanical basis & no actual expenses are accounted on wells, it is submitted that the actual expenses are charged to each well as incurred and common expenses are allocated on the basis of production ratio.

It is submitted it be so held now.

3. The learned AO erred in law by not allowing depreciation of Rs. 80,739/- on amount paid in AY 2004-05 for acquiring participating interest in Joint Venture termed as 'goodwill) which is business or commercial right of similar nature as envisaged u/s 32 of the Act, to keep the issue alive since the department is in appeal before ITAT, It is submitted it be so held now.

3.1 The learned AO erred in not appreciate the fact that no payment made during the year nor any right is acquired during the year and therefore following the blocs of asset principle the deprecation should be allowed on Opening Written Down Value of the Block of Asset as claimed by