THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. SAURASHTRA CEMENT LTD.,, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

disallowance of Excessive Depreciation claim on Plant & Machinery amounting to Rs.33,85,988/-, disallowance of expenditure incurred as Entertainment of Expenses

SAURASHTA CEMENT LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

disallowance of Excessive Depreciation claim on Plant & Machinery amounting to Rs.33,85,988/-, disallowance of expenditure incurred as Entertainment of Expenses

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GANDHI REALITY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

depreciation claims but disallows future depreciation on goodwill from 01.04.2021 onwards. We note that in assessee`s case under consideration

SHRI RAJESH KARSHANBHAI VEKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WD-2(1)(5), RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.173/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya, Income Tax Officer, Ward- Plot No. 266, Kuvadva Gidc, Opp. 2,(1)(5), Rajkot, Aayakar Vs. Riddhi Agro Industries, Kuvadva, Bhavan, Race Course Ring Rajkot-360003 Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acxpp9434A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08 /01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha Jm; Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against Order Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi /Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) , Vide Order Dated 25.012024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ For Short) Dated 26.03.2015 U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Hereunder Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 2. The Id. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As To The "Cit(A)"] Erred On Facts As Also In Law Confirming Addition Of Rs.86,68,718/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Alleged Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act On The Alleged Ground That The Appellant Failed To Prove Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of Various Parties From Whom Unsecured Loan Of Rs.86,68,718/-Were Ita No. 173-Rjt-2024 Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya

depreciation was disallowed because of ownership bill was not submitted in the assessment proceedings and ad hoc disallowance was made

DR. SUBHASH PETHALJI CHAVDA AHIR KELVANI MANDAL,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-2,, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of claim of depreciation amounting to Rs. 32,70,994/- in the background of the facts that the assessee

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

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

SALIM ABDULLAH RATHOD,MUNDRA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 277/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Salim Abdullah Rathod, Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 6316, Swami Vivekanand Nagar New Vs. Gandhidham Kutch, Gujarat Swaminarayan Temple Road Bhutda 370465 Wadi, Gujarat, 370465 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adnpp3110E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Disallowance of depreciation claimed @ 30%. During the course of assessment proceedings it was noticed that the assessee was wilfully and deliberately

VITARAG EXPORT INDUSTRIES,JUNAGADH ROAD vs. ITO, WARD - 2(1)(1), RAJKOT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, ground No.5 raised by the assessee, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.354/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Vitrang Export Industries, Vs. The Ito, Junagadh Road, Near Railway Ward – 2(1)(1), Crossing, Dhoraji, Gujarat - 360140 Rajkot "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfv2407M (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of depreciation on alleged purchase of solvent machineries. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation. If notional adjustment for the addition was made, then there would be no case for any disallowance. Disallowance of Rs.10

THE ACIT GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S RAVJI MANJI SORATHIA &CO.,, ADIPUR-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of the higher depreciation claimed. 5.3.2 The appellant has informed that similar disallowance had been made by the Assessing

THA ACIT, CIRCLE MORBI, MORBI vs. M/S. JAXX VITRIFIED PVT. LTD. , MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation of Rs. 4,98,859/-. Assessing officer has disallowed the balance additional depreciation claimed by assessee on the machinery

SWAMINARAYAN SEVA NIKETAN,,JUNAGADH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-2,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) [Through Virtual Court]

disallowance of depreciation of Rs.29,51,998/- treating the same as double deduction claimed by the Appellant. 3. Without prejudice

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S H.D. ENTERPRISE,, BHUJ

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysr. Asstt. Name Of Name Of Ita No. No. Year Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. H.D. Income-Tax, Enterprise, 1St Floor, Pooja 1. 110/Rjt/2016 2011-12 Gandhidham Circle, Complex, Station Gandhidham- Road, Bhuj-Kutch Kutch Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2. 205/Rjt/2016 2012-13 Gandhidham -Do- Circle, Gandhidham- Kutch 3. 237/Rjt/2016 2013-14 -Do- -Do- (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. N. Maurya, Cit Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 25/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 11.01.2016, 03.03.2016 & 25.04.2016 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Rajkot Arising Out Of The Orders All Dated 24.03.2014 Passed By The Ita Nos.110,205&237/Rjt/2016 A.Y.2011-12,2012-13&2013-14 Assessing Officer, Gandhidham Under Sections 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since All The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & The Issues Are Identical, These Are Heard Analogously & Are Being Disposed By A Common Order.

depreciation is allowable and ultimately the disallowance of 15% depreciation has been deleted. We have carefully considered the judgment passed

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S H.D. ENTERPRISE,, BHUJ

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysr. Asstt. Name Of Name Of Ita No. No. Year Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. H.D. Income-Tax, Enterprise, 1St Floor, Pooja 1. 110/Rjt/2016 2011-12 Gandhidham Circle, Complex, Station Gandhidham- Road, Bhuj-Kutch Kutch Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2. 205/Rjt/2016 2012-13 Gandhidham -Do- Circle, Gandhidham- Kutch 3. 237/Rjt/2016 2013-14 -Do- -Do- (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. N. Maurya, Cit Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 25/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 11.01.2016, 03.03.2016 & 25.04.2016 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Rajkot Arising Out Of The Orders All Dated 24.03.2014 Passed By The Ita Nos.110,205&237/Rjt/2016 A.Y.2011-12,2012-13&2013-14 Assessing Officer, Gandhidham Under Sections 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since All The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & The Issues Are Identical, These Are Heard Analogously & Are Being Disposed By A Common Order.

depreciation is allowable and ultimately the disallowance of 15% depreciation has been deleted. We have carefully considered the judgment passed

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S H.D. ENTERPRISE,, BHUJ

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysr. Asstt. Name Of Name Of Ita No. No. Year Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. H.D. Income-Tax, Enterprise, 1St Floor, Pooja 1. 110/Rjt/2016 2011-12 Gandhidham Circle, Complex, Station Gandhidham- Road, Bhuj-Kutch Kutch Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2. 205/Rjt/2016 2012-13 Gandhidham -Do- Circle, Gandhidham- Kutch 3. 237/Rjt/2016 2013-14 -Do- -Do- (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. N. Maurya, Cit Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 25/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 11.01.2016, 03.03.2016 & 25.04.2016 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Rajkot Arising Out Of The Orders All Dated 24.03.2014 Passed By The Ita Nos.110,205&237/Rjt/2016 A.Y.2011-12,2012-13&2013-14 Assessing Officer, Gandhidham Under Sections 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since All The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & The Issues Are Identical, These Are Heard Analogously & Are Being Disposed By A Common Order.

depreciation is allowable and ultimately the disallowance of 15% depreciation has been deleted. We have carefully considered the judgment passed

SAMANVYA EDUCATION & CHARITABLE TRUST,DHORAJI, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION)-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 16/Rjt/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Year:2015-2016 Samanvya Education & Charitable Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Trust, (Exemption)-1, Nr. Bhola Darshan Apt., Ward-1, Station Road, Rajkot. Junagadh Road, Dhoraji-360410. Pan: Aajts8062M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Divetia, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit. Dr सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/12/2023 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

disallowed in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. As per the ld. AR, the depreciation of Rs. 3,77,147/- was disallowed

M/S JAY AMBICA EXIM,,GANDHIDHAM. vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2, , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,98,468/- only. Thus, the AO disallowed such excess depreciation and added to the total