GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

depreciation claimed on two wheeler vehicles and Motor Car. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.10,38,591/- made by the Assessing Officer @ 25% of labour charges claimed by the Appellant. 5. In this case, a survey operation u/s. 133 A of the Act was carried out by the Investigation wing

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

depreciation claimed on two wheeler vehicles and Motor Car. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.10,38,591/- made by the Assessing Officer @ 25% of labour charges claimed by the Appellant. 5. In this case, a survey operation u/s. 133 A of the Act was carried out by the Investigation wing

GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri S. S. Godara.

reopening quashed in assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05 (supra). There is hardly any dispute that the Assessing Officer had framed regular assessments therein on 31.01.2005, 24.03.2006 and 26.12.2006. He thereafter issued Section 148 notices hereinabove for the reason that its Jetty & Trestle were entitled for lesser rate of depreciation

GANESH HOUSING CORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4, NOW, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) “Ganesh Corporate House” Navjivan Trust Bldg. Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaacg 5590 Q With Co No.216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Navjivan Trust Bldg. “Ganesh Corporate House” Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri C. Danday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2018 आदेश/O R D E R

reopening of the assessment. Short dispute for our consideration is, whether AO was able to lay his hand on any new information after passing of 143(3)-order ITA No.3083/Ahd/2015 with CO And ITA No.3034/Ahd/2015 10 which can goad him to form a belief that income has escaped assessment. Before embarking upon an inquiry on the facts of the present

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GANESH HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) “Ganesh Corporate House” Navjivan Trust Bldg. Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaacg 5590 Q With Co No.216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Navjivan Trust Bldg. “Ganesh Corporate House” Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri C. Danday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2018 आदेश/O R D E R

reopening of the assessment. Short dispute for our consideration is, whether AO was able to lay his hand on any new information after passing of 143(3)-order ITA No.3083/Ahd/2015 with CO And ITA No.3034/Ahd/2015 10 which can goad him to form a belief that income has escaped assessment. Before embarking upon an inquiry on the facts of the present

PARVINDAR INDAR SINGH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation aggregating to Rs. 10.56 crores and said losses were returned losses and not assessed losses and, in such circumstances, amount of Rs. 10.56 crores could be said to have escaped assessment - However, it was found that all aspects of matter sought to be relied upon for purpose of reopening

PARVINDAR INDAR SINGH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation aggregating to Rs. 10.56 crores and said losses were returned losses and not assessed losses and, in such circumstances, amount of Rs. 10.56 crores could be said to have escaped assessment - However, it was found that all aspects of matter sought to be relied upon for purpose of reopening

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation on land which was not allowable - Whether on ground of merger, reopening notice must be quashed as initial assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation on land which was not allowable - Whether on ground of merger, reopening notice must be quashed as initial assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation on land which was not allowable - Whether on ground of merger, reopening notice must be quashed as initial assessment

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation on land which was not allowable - Whether on ground of merger, reopening notice must be quashed as initial assessment

RAJKAMAL AGRO INDUSTRIES,DEESA vs. ITO, WARD 1, PALANPUR, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1853/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajkamal Agro Industries The Ito बनाम/ Deesa Palanpur Highway Ward-I V/S. At Rasna, Deesa – 385 535 Palanpur 385 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaifr 7263 C (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 04/09/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

reopening of the assessment has been made by the Assessing Officer (AO), in this case, on two issues. Firstly, that the assessee had received capital subsidy on investment, whereas the assessee has not reduced the said amount of subsidy from the cost of the machinery purchased and, therefore, the assessee had claimed excess depreciation

M/S. KALATHIA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

assessment be cancelled denovo. 2. The learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in rejecting the claim of additional depreciation of Rs.21,81,367/- on new plant and machinery purchased during the year. It is submitted that additional depreciation be allowed u/s.32 of the I.T. Act as claimed, and therefore, reopening

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

BHANSALI FISCAL SERVICES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

reopening the assessment, the Assessing Officer recorded the observations as follows:- “In this case, the assesses company had filed e-filed return of income for the above assessment year on 27.10.2005 declaring total income of Rs.Nil after claiming set-off of brought forward business loss / unabsorbed depreciation

SHRI ANILBHAI HIRALAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reopened on the basis of information received from the other Departments are also governed by the aforesaid principle of making an independent inquiry and recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. 97. Third party information is only an information and does not constitute 'reason to believe' until and unless the third party

SHRI HEMANG CHIMANBHAI POKAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). . . . . Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment

YASHODABEN MANEKLAL SONI,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DAHOD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

reopening of assessment is this that the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that taxable income has escaped assessment or to recompute loss depreciation