ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

revised the assessment order, therefor Asst. Year 2010-11 cannot be taken as a base to allow the appeal of the assessee. 27. The Ld. CIT-D.R. further submitted that the assessee is not engaged in production of manufacture in Rudrapur unit, as the assessee purchased the semi- finished goods from Rajkot unit and sends it to Rudrapur unit

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

revised the assessment order, therefor Asst. Year 2010-11 cannot be taken as a base to allow the appeal of the assessee. 27. The Ld. CIT-D.R. further submitted that the assessee is not engaged in production of manufacture in Rudrapur unit, as the assessee purchased the semi- finished goods from Rajkot unit and sends it to Rudrapur unit

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ADDI. CIT, RANGE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

revised the assessment order, therefor Asst. Year 2010-11 cannot be taken as a base to allow the appeal of the assessee. 27. The Ld. CIT-D.R. further submitted that the assessee is not engaged in production of manufacture in Rudrapur unit, as the assessee purchased the semi- finished goods from Rajkot unit and sends it to Rudrapur unit

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

revised the assessment order, therefor Asst. Year 2010-11 cannot be taken as a base to allow the appeal of the assessee. 27. The Ld. CIT-D.R. further submitted that the assessee is not engaged in production of manufacture in Rudrapur unit, as the assessee purchased the semi- finished goods from Rajkot unit and sends it to Rudrapur unit

ASSISTANT COMMISSINER OF IINCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

revised the assessment order, therefor Asst. Year 2010-11 cannot be taken as a base to allow the appeal of the assessee. 27. The Ld. CIT-D.R. further submitted that the assessee is not engaged in production of manufacture in Rudrapur unit, as the assessee purchased the semi- finished goods from Rajkot unit and sends it to Rudrapur unit

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

revised the assessment order, therefor Asst. Year 2010-11 cannot be taken as a base to allow the appeal of the assessee. 27. The Ld. CIT-D.R. further submitted that the assessee is not engaged in production of manufacture in Rudrapur unit, as the assessee purchased the semi- finished goods from Rajkot unit and sends it to Rudrapur unit

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

revised the assessment order, therefor Asst. Year 2010-11 cannot be taken as a base to allow the appeal of the assessee. 27. The Ld. CIT-D.R. further submitted that the assessee is not engaged in production of manufacture in Rudrapur unit, as the assessee purchased the semi- finished goods from Rajkot unit and sends it to Rudrapur unit

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

revision u/s 263 was passed on 13.09.2016 and AO was directed to re-assess the income of the assessee depicting the following issues: (a) Share Capital introduced during the year under consideration; (b) Unsecured Loans (squared up or not) raised during the year; (c) Sundry Creditors, and (d) Sustainability of claim u/s 32AC 3. Accordingly, a notices u/s

M/S. EMBOZA GRANITO PVT. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 240/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-2017

depreciation of Rs.6.25 crores on plant and machinery installed during the year under consideration and (3) deduction claimed on account of investment allowance u/s.32AC of the Act of Rs.5.11 crores and thereby setting aside the order passed u/s.143(3} of the Act dated 21.12.2018. The order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the learned Pr. CIT is totally unjustified

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

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

u/s 143(3) of the Act, on 15/04/2021 for the A.Y. 2018-19, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Therefore, ld. PCIT directed the assessing officer to examine and investigate and to verify these various expenses, as claimed

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

u/s 143(3) of the Act, on 15/04/2021 for the A.Y. 2018-19, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Therefore, ld. PCIT directed the assessing officer to examine and investigate and to verify these various expenses, as claimed

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.:

depreciation, the net income of Rs. 92,40,586/- has been shown. The net business income is claimed as deduction u/s 80P(2)(b) of the Act, in the return filed by the assessee. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the deduction of interest is disallowed and the net interest income of Rs. 34,79,487/- has been treated

RAJSHANTI METALS PVT. LTD.,,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX,, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 176/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 Rajshanti Metals Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of B-42, Gidc, Vs. Income Tax, Shankar Tekri, Jamnagar. Jamnagar.

263 proceedings are invalid when AO had made enquiries and taken a plausible view in law, with the following observations: “Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we see no reason to interfere with the view of the Tribunal. The question whether the income should be taxed as business income or as arising

SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK MANAGER (F & A), RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

revision u/s 263 of the Income tax Act. 10. In response to the above show cause notice, the assessee has submitted a detailed reply before learned PCIT on 22/12/2021. The assessee submitted about provision of Rs. 20,78,36,400/- on account of Investment Depreciation

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

u/s 36(1)(viii) of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- Ground no. 3 is hereby allowed. 5. That the revenue is an appeal against the impugned order dated 01/02/2024 before us. THE ACIT CIR.1(1) RAJKOT 6. During the course of hearing, Ld. Sr. DR of the revenue has filed written submissions, which are reproduced; Filed on 24/09/2024 Sub: Written

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

u/s 143(3) dated 30.09.2019 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 13. Therefore, learned PCIT had issued a show cause notice to the assessee, on 19.01.2021, to explain the above transactions, and to furnish the following evidences, before the learned PCIT: (i) Explanation with documentary evidences in regard to your contention that

SMT. ILLABEN JAYANTKUMAR DOSHI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.124/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13

depreciation is allowable against the income from business and income from other sources. Perusal of the records shows that the A.O. allowed your aforesaid your claim for setoff without further verification. 4. The AO has made assessment in the manner as discussed above without making any inquiry or verification regarding nature of labour income, interest expenses and applicability of section

ASHVIN DINESHBHAI JADAV,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 133(6) on sample basis to depositors which went unattended. Therefore, the assessing officer issued show-cause notice alleging that the assessee had failed to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of depositors. On receipt of the notice, the assessee sought advice from another tax professional and explained the entire case. In response, the assessee submitted a detailed reply dated

SHRI JAYANTILAL P. SATIKUNVER,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.469/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11)

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11. A.Y.2010-11 2. The only interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT erred in holding the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and therefore