M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

penalty\nproceedings initiated under section 270(1) of the by the\nassessing officer.\n2.\nDepreciation on machinery need to be calculated from date on\nassets put to use.\n3.\nLikewise depreciation

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

penalty amounting to Rs.30,23,032/- paid on Differential Royalty on Basalt, disallowance of Excessive Depreciation claim on Plant & Machinery

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

penalty amounting to Rs.30,23,032/- paid on Differential Royalty on Basalt, disallowance of Excessive Depreciation claim on Plant & Machinery

ANUP A. SHAH,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 106/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2005-2006 वष"

depreciation Rs.10,208/- Total confirmed additions Rs.21,71,700/- 8. Accordingly, the AO issued fresh show notice proposing to levy of penalty

M/S. SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) is initiated on these amounts for concealment of income.\n12\nITA 276/Rjt/2019 (AY 2016-17) SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD.\niv) Disallowance of additional depreciation

SHRI KANJIBHAI B. RANGANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty could not be levied. In the case of National Textiles Corporation Ltd. 151 taxmann.com 512 (Delhi), the Hon'ble High Court held that where assessee due to bona fide error wrongly claimed foreign exchange rate difference as an expense and after accepting said mistake it claimed depreciation

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)

depreciation on Plant & Machinery and vehicle is unwarranted, unjustified and sad in law. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad has erred in dismissing the appeal and whereby upholding the charging interest u/s. 234A, 2348 and 234C is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad has erred

SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

depreciation which would be required to be set off\nagainst the profit of the relevant previous year as if the provisions of clause (b) of the first\nproviso to sub-section (1) of section 205 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), are\napplicable.\n(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall affect the determination of the amounts

ACIT, CIR-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD, RAJKOT

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.188/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Tax, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot Limited Room No.502, Aayakar Bhawan, Jilla Bankbhavan, Kasturba Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot- Opp: Chaudhary High School, 360001 Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaar0564K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr : 09/06 /2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08 /2025

penalties and interest, as it may be perceived as an attempt to evade taxes. Conclusion For taxpayers to legitimately benefit from the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii), strict adherence to statutory requirements is non-negotiable. Claiming the deduction through the profit and loss account and separately disclosing eligible business profits are crucial steps in this process. These practices

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), , RAJKOT vs. SYMBOSA GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED, WANKANER

penalty proceedings, if any, to the assessee, along with the\ndemand notice specifying the sum payable by, or refund of any amount due to, the\nassessee on the basis of such assessment; or\n(b) provide an opportunity to the assessee, in case any variation prejudicial to the\ninterest of assessee is proposed, by serving a notice calling upon

SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO OP PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 429/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Surendranagar District Co. Op. Acit, Circle, Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Surendranagar-363035 Plot No.249, Phase 2 Gidc Market Yard Circle, Sursagar Dairy, Wadhwan Road, Surendranagar-363035 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : Heard On 09/10/2025, Refixed For Clarification On 03.11.2025 & Finally Heard On 02.02.2026 : 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the interest charged u/s 234A/B/C of the I. T. Act, 1961. 8. That, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law.” 3. First, we shall take ground No. 1 and 2, above, raised

GIRISH LAHORI,GANDHIDHAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

penalty proceedings u/s\n271(1)(c) and 271F of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n4.That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B\nof the I.T. Act, 1961.\n5.That, the findings of the Ld. assessing officer and Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and\nare bad- in-law.\nThat, the appellant craves to add, amend

KUTCH DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,ANJAR - KUTCH vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

Penalty u/s 270A of the Act is initiated\nfor under reporting of income.\"\nHowever, we note that in the computation of total income, the Assessing\nOfficer by mistake took the figure at Rs.5,87,74,816/-, instead of correct figure of\nRs.5,85,74,816/-. We state that correct figure, as per the findings of the Assessing\nOfficer should