M/S WESTERN INDIA CERAMICS P. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, ground number 4 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

TDS deducted thereon, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 11. In the result, grounds number 2 and 3 are restored to the file of AO with the above directions. In the result, grounds number 2 and 3 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. Ground number 4: disallowance of depreciation

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

TDS on expenditure of Rs 13,00,93,467/- and Rs 4,25,67,395/-, an amount of Rs 5,17,98,259/- being 30% of Rs 17,26,60,862 (13,00,93,467 + 4,25,67,395) is required to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of Act and added to your total income. 3.2 Further, on verification

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

TDS on expenditure of Rs 13,00,93,467/- and Rs 4,25,67,395/-, an amount of Rs 5,17,98,259/- being 30% of Rs 17,26,60,862 (13,00,93,467 + 4,25,67,395) is required to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of Act and added to your total income. 3.2 Further, on verification

FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALLIED INDS.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE GANDHIDHAM,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

depreciation claimed on the land cost of Wind mill should not be disallowed based on disallowance made in the A.Y. 2014-15, *Why the REC Income and VCU Income which was deducted from the statement of total income considering it as a capital receipt should not be added back to total income by treating it as a business receipt

FRIENDS SALT WORKS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES,GANDHIDHAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

depreciation claimed on the land cost of Wind mill should not be disallowed based on disallowance made in the A.Y. 2014-15, *Why the REC Income and VCU Income which was deducted from the statement of total income considering it as a capital receipt should not be added back to total income by treating it as a business receipt

THE ITO, WARD 1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S PAVAN CONSTRUCTION CO, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS was deducted by M/s. Sutreja & Co. which was duly claimed by the assessee in its income tax return. The assessee has also filed a statement showing the details of the bills raised to M/s. Sutreja & Co. during the year which were offered to tax. The same has been reproduced somewhere in the preceding year

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

TDS deserves to be deleted. We accordingly delete the disallowance. This ground of appeal is allowed. 46. In ground no.3, the assessee has challenged addition of Rs.50,000/- on account of low household withdrawals. 47. We have already considered this issue while taking up appeal for the Asstt.Year 2004-05. We reject this ground of appeal. 48. Ground No.4

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE PROJECTS LIMITED.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

TDS is that the assessee had given back to back contracts worth Rs. 97.89 crores and the income from own contract was only Rs. 72.00 crores, which was from contracts awarded in 2010 which were quoted below the tender estimated cost and also due to increase in material cost, this had serious effect on profitability. The work executed during

RAJESHBHAI CHIMANBHAI JAVIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.312/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009

depreciation of Rs. 76,500/- and petrol expenses of Rs. 32,800/-. The addition needs suitable reduction. 5. Without prejudice, the assessment made is bad in law and deserves annulment. 6. Without prejudice, no adequate, sufficient and reasonable opportunity has been provided while passing assessment order. The assessment needs annulment. 7. Without prejudice, no adequate, sufficient and reasonable opportunity

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION CO,TALALA, JUNAGADH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

In the result, ground no.2(e ) raised by the assessee, is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.608/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Krishna Construction Co. The Dcit, Cir.1(1) बनाम Below Dr.Antalas Hospital Rajkot. Station Road, Talala (Gir) Vs. Junagadh. Pan : Aaifk 8897 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R.D. Lalchandani, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini:

TDS, as applicable, as per the Act, has also been deducted therefore, genuineness of these sub-contract expenses, should not be doubted. Based on these facts and circumstances of the case, we delete the addition. 13. In the result, ground No. 2(a) raised by the assessee, is allowed. 14. Now, we shall take ground no.2(b) raised

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S BHIMJI VELJI SORATHIA,, ADIPUR-KUTCH

Appeal is allowed

depreciation @ 30% with the understanding that these vehicles have been put to use for transport business. The said argument was not accepted by the A.O. basically because of following reasons :- 1. There was no separate income from hire / freight and thus it cannot be said that appellant is also in the business of transportation. A.O. opined that appellant

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

Depreciation Related to Mfg. 67 68 087 77 55 982 1 73 60 002 1 93 45 151 (Increase )/Decrease in stock Opening stock By product 1 28 206 2 86 589 Work in process 5 86 46 481 6 63 78 651 Finished goods 1 11 79 254 77 63 967 Total

ALPHA HI-TECH FUEL LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SNR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.68/Rjt/2009 (धििाधरणणवध/ Assessment Year 2005-06) Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Limited, बिाम/ D.C.I.T, Station Road, Surendranagar Vs. Lakhtar, Dist. Surendranagar, Gujarat-382775 स्ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4258P (अपीला््/Appellant) (प्य््/ Respondent) अपीला््थरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R Shri B.D Gupta, Sr. D.R. प्य््करथरसे/Respondent By: सुिणाईकरतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 08/06/2023 घोवणाकरतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/09/2023 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

depreciation which is evident from the computation of income filed by the assessee which is available on page 13 of the WS filed by the Revenue. Thus, a question may arise if there was no positive income then what was the reason for the assessee to claim the deduction under section 80 IA of the Act. However

VRAJ AND VAJ CONSTRUCTION,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

depreciation on JCB machines. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings on the above disallowances and levied minimum penalty of Rs. 81,725/- being the tax sought to be evaded on concealed income. 3. Aggrieved against the same the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted that it had furnished copy of the bank statement

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. RAJKOT PEOPLES CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed except CO of the assessee in the Asstt

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.

depreciation and losses of Asstt.Years 2005-06 and 2006-07 would become the loss of Asstt.Year 2007-08 and thereafter will be carried ITA No.36/RJT/2014 and 8 Others With CO Ms/.Cooperative Bank of Rajkot Vs. ACIT, Cir.1, Rajkot 12 forward to other years. It has to be decided how it is not admissible. Therefore, we set aside the order

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

depreciation of Rs. 19,15,32,208/-, as per I.T. Act. Further, the\ncompany has increased its profit by Rs. 1,87,86,147/- (Rs. 21,03,18,355/- less\nRs. 19,15,32,208/-) in income tax return (ITR). In support of this, the assessee\nhas submitted before the assessing officer the copy of computation of income\nfor assessment

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 बनाम Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Income Tax Vs. Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 Circle-1(1), Rajkot Pan : Aadcg6113A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025

depreciation of Rs. 19,15,32,208/-, as per I.T. Act. Further, the company has increased its profit by Rs. 1,87,86,147/- (Rs. 21,03,18,355/- less Rs. 19,15,32,208/-) in income tax return (ITR). In support of this, the assessee has submitted before the assessing officer the copy of computation of income for assessment

M/S. SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. ,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DCIT, SURENDRANAGR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

TDS. 14. At the outset the learned AR for the assessee submitted that he has been instructed not to press the impugned issue. Therefore we dismiss the same as not pressed. The 5th issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the AO by treating the profit on sale

THE ITO, WARD-2(2),, JAMNAGAR vs. SMT. SHITALBEN SAURABH VORA,, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

TDS. 14. At the outset the learned AR for the assessee submitted that he has been instructed not to press the impugned issue. Therefore we dismiss the same as not pressed. The 5th issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the AO by treating the profit on sale