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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.185/Rjt/2023

penalty proceedings initiated under section 270(1) of the by the assessing officer. 2. Depreciation on machinery need to be calculated

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

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Vitrified Tiles. The Return Of Income Has Been E-Filed By The Assessee, On 10/09/2016 For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17, Reporting Loss Of Rs. 5,68,00,829/-, Which Was Later Revised On 09/03/2018, Declaring Total Loss Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/-, Claiming Investment Allowance U/S 32Ac Of The Income Tax Act. The Case Has Been Selected For Complete Scrutiny (Cass) Specifically To Examine The Followings: 1) Whether Outward Foreign Remittance Is From Disclosed Sources & Appropriate Withholding & Reporting Obligation Have Been Complied With; 2) Whether Investment & Income Relating To Properties Are Duly Disclosed; 3) Whether Receipt Of Foreign Remittance Has Been Correctly Offered For Tax And, 4) Whether Sundry Creditors Are Genuine. 4. The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 Was Passed By Dcit, Morbi Circle, Morbi, Being The Assessing Officer (Ao), On 21/12/2018, Allowing The Loss Claimed Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/- To Be Carry Forward To Subsequent Years. 2

Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) is initiated on these amounts for concealment of income. 12 ITA 276/Rjt/2019 (AY 2016-17) SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. iv) Disallowance of additional depreciation

VASANTABEN RAMESHBHAI SHERASHIYA,,MORBI vs. ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, MORBI CIRCLE,, MORBI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकरअपीलसं.Ita No. 48/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Sh. Vasantaben R Vs. Acit Sherashiya Morbi Circle, Surbhi, Subhas Nagar, Morbi Ravapar Road, Morbi

depreciation @ 15% to the amount of Rs. 3,23,700/- the AO has disallowed the balance amount of Rs. 18,34,300/- and rejected the claim of revenue expenditure of the assessee. The AO has also initiated penalty

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

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

depreciation to the tune of Rs.32,70,994/- is added back to the income of the trust. In view of the above, it is seen that there is willful attempt of concealment of income and misguide the department to conceal the liability of tax. Penalty

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation @12.5% thereon. However, the ld CIT(A) treated the part of the machinery repairing expenses incurred for the reconditioning of the existing machineries. As per the ld CIT(A) the amount of repairing expenses was representing the normal wear and tear expenses. Therefore the same cannot be treated as capital in nature. From the preceding discussion, we note that

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

UMA COTTON & OIL INDUSTRIES,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), RANGE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Rjt/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009

depreciation for A.Y. 2006-07 from the assessed income. The same may kindly be allowed. 6.0 Your Honor's appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal. 2. The effective issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI RAJKOT DISTT. CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Us.

depreciation of Rs.9,07,85,000/-. Ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 22. Ground no. 2 reads as under: 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-2, Rajkot has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 29,11,000/- on account of accrued interest on NPA account as income. 23. As transpires from

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

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.

penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06. Since in all these appeals/cross- objections, issues and facts are intertwined to each other, we proceed to dispose of all by this common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. 3. Before adverting

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

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.578-581/Rjt/2008 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2000-01 To 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.67/Rjt/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05) बनाम/ Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Limited, Cit(Appeals)-Xvi, Station Road, Lakhtar, Dist. Ahmedabad. Vs. Surrendranagar, Gujarat-382775 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4258P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar Das, Dr. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 16/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Rajkot [Cit(A) In Short] Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2000-01 To 2004-05. Ita No.578-581/Rjt/2008 A.Y.S 2000-01 To 2004-05 First We Take Assessee’S Appeal Bearing Ita No. 578/Rjt/2008. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has also raised the following additional grounds of appeal: 1. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in re-opening the concluded assessment of A.Ys 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2003-04 u/s.147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Note: 1. This ground is already taken up in Form

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.578-581/Rjt/2008 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2000-01 To 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.67/Rjt/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05) बनाम/ Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Limited, Cit(Appeals)-Xvi, Station Road, Lakhtar, Dist. Ahmedabad. Vs. Surrendranagar, Gujarat-382775 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4258P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar Das, Dr. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 16/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Rajkot [Cit(A) In Short] Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2000-01 To 2004-05. Ita No.578-581/Rjt/2008 A.Y.S 2000-01 To 2004-05 First We Take Assessee’S Appeal Bearing Ita No. 578/Rjt/2008. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has also raised the following additional grounds of appeal: 1. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in re-opening the concluded assessment of A.Ys 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2003-04 u/s.147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Note: 1. This ground is already taken up in Form

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