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

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

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

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

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

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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. APPLITECH SOLUTION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reopened by the Assessing Officer and a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by him to the assessee on 03.03.2004 after recording the reasons. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was called upon by the Assessing Officer to support and substantiate its claim for depreciation

ABDULVAHED A. SHEIKH, LEGAL HEIROF LATE SMT. SARIFABEN BIKHUBHAI SHEK,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

depreciation allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in ss. 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." It is not necessary to consider the Explanation. Sec. 148 provides for issue of notice where income has escaped assessment as under: "148. (1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA -HUF, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 795/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.169/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Dharmenbhai M. Sutaria, Huf Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aafhd1653K

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) : 8.2 From the above, it is transpired that it is necessary for the AO before initiating the proceedings under section 147 of the Act to form reasons

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREYASI DHARMEN SUTARIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 797/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.173/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shreyasi Dharmen Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. 2Nd Address: 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Awops1881R

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) : 7.2 From the above, it is transpired that it is necessary for the AO before initiating the proceedings under section 147 of the Act to form reasons

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.DHARMEN MARBLE & STONE, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 794/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Dharmen Marble & Stone, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabfd5172B

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) : 7.2 From the above, it is transpired that it is necessary for the AO before initiating the proceedings under section 147 of the Act to form reasons

VARIJ BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,. WARD-8(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed; whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Memeber & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09 Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-8(4) 2, Sejal House Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008. Pan : Aaccv5656Q Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-8(4) Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs 2, Sejal House Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms.Nupur Shah, Ar & Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshkumar L. Sadhu, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Are Cross Appeals One Filed By The Assessee In Ita No.1915/Ahd/2013 & Another Filed By The Revenue In Ita No.2008/Ahd/2013 Against Order Dated 9.5.2013 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Ahmedabad [In Short Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Relating To The Assessment Year 2008-09. Ita No.1915 & 2008/Ahd/2013 2 2. Original Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act Of Rs.92,00,000/- On Account Of Share Application Money Received In Cash.

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). …. ….. …… [Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment. Section 148. Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, and subject to the provisions of section 148A, the Assessing Officer