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

10. The assessee submitted that there were various commercial reasons of the merger, like, as enumerated in para 1.1.3, all the companies were engaged in different activities but in relation to real estate sector. Hence even though doing different business activities the businesses of all the three companies complimented each other. There was a high scope of gaining financial

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.376/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Circle-3(1), Vs. Gopalnaga, Opp. Andh Mahila Rajkot. Vikas Gruh, Rajkot.

26-11-2008 In a recent review of assessment of Banks carried out by C&AG, it has been observed that while computing the income of banks under the head 'Profit and Gains of Business & Profession', deductions of large amounts under different sections are being allowed by the Assessing Officers without proper verification, leading to substantial loss of revenue

AMRELI JILLA MADHYASTH SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,AMRELI vs. THE DCIT-ACIT-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.548/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Sahakari The Dcit/Acit-2(1) बनाम Bank Ltd. Rajkot. Bhojalram Bhavan Vs. Rajmahel Road Amreli 365 601. Pan : Aaata 2737 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M.Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

depreciation i.e. (a) Rs.32,22,897/- and 10% average advances of nRs.3,92,33,51,000/- i.e. (b)_ Rs.39,23,35,100/-, total (a) plus (b) Rs.39,55,57,997/- or (ii) Rs.NIL being provision debited to profit & loss account plus Rs.57,00,750/- being 15% of profit & loss appropriation amount of Rs.3

SHRI NITINBHAI T. BHUPTANI, L.I.C,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-4,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Accountatn Member & Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 13/Rjt/2016 & 14/Rjt/2016 & 182/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011, 2011-12 & 2012-13

section 10 are being prescribed under Rule 2BB of the Income tax Rules 1962. In order to claim these allowances, an assessee has to fulfill three conditions namely, (a) the allowance should be prescribed under Rule 2BB of the Income tax Rules, (b) expenses should be incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively in the performance of duties (C) allowances should

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

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

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

section 43(5). It is immaterial whether transaction is carried out at the recognized stock exchange or not. Even the circular of CBDT cited in the assessment order states that once it is established that the assessee has entered in the transaction of the commodity that they deal the other technical details have no material impact. Hence, this reasoning

M/S. RISHI KIRAN LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE JOINT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX,, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

section 14A of the Act cannot be invoked - Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 has held if no exempt income has been earned by the assessee in ITA Nos.160/Rjt/15 9 & ITA 349 & 379/Ahd/2016 . A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 the relevant assessment year then no disallowance

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S RISHI KIRAN LOGISTICS P. LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

section 14A of the Act cannot be invoked - Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 has held if no exempt income has been earned by the assessee in ITA Nos.160/Rjt/15 9 & ITA 349 & 379/Ahd/2016 . A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 the relevant assessment year then no disallowance

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

Depreciation claimed 1,78,82,307 1,51,65,107 5 WDV 7,85,31,109 9,83,31,838 Manufacturing Sales, Job Work Income and Material Consumption at Rudrapur Unit: No Particulars FY 08-09 FY 09-10 1 Sales 4,79,26,914 14,46,11,771 2 Jobwork Income 10 Total income Manufacturing 4,79,26

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

Depreciation claimed 1,78,82,307 1,51,65,107 5 WDV 7,85,31,109 9,83,31,838 Manufacturing Sales, Job Work Income and Material Consumption at Rudrapur Unit: No Particulars FY 08-09 FY 09-10 1 Sales 4,79,26,914 14,46,11,771 2 Jobwork Income 10 Total Income Manufacturing 4,79,26

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.

10 With reference to the above, we are to state as under:- 1. The bank is registered with the Gujarat State Co-operative Societies Act. And a/so holding banking licence under Banking Regulation Act 2. Bank is also governed by the provisions of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 for their working of business and bank has to follow

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

10(viii) of the Act cannot exceed 20% of the profit of the Eligible Business, the appellant could not be allowed any deduction over and above Rs. 1,87,34,799/- Since the appellant had claimed deduction of Rs.2,62,50,000/- in the return of income, the excess claim

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

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

10. Later on, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot (“Ld.PCIT” for short), exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.On perusal of assessment records for assessment year 2018-19, it was noticed by ld. PCIT that the assessee has debited contract and sub- contract expenses and job work expenses in the Profit& Loss account

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

10. Later on, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot (“Ld.PCIT” for short), exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.On perusal of assessment records for assessment year 2018-19, it was noticed by ld. PCIT that the assessee has debited contract and sub- contract expenses and job work expenses in the Profit& Loss account

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. CHAMPION AGRO LTD., FORMERLY KNOWN AS MAGNETIC INDS. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 504/Rjt/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 78/Rjt/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010

Depreciation, advertisement expenses, administrative expenses, etc for calculating disallowance as per Rule 8D. Brief Points to be considered by the Hon’ble ITAT, Rajkot Bench, 1. The CIT(Appeals] did not considered the fact that the agreements between the farmers and the assessee company are on plain paper and not on non-judicial stamp paper as also not notarized

THE ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CHAMPION AGRO LTD.,,

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 504/Rjt/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 78/Rjt/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010

Depreciation, advertisement expenses, administrative expenses, etc for calculating disallowance as per Rule 8D. Brief Points to be considered by the Hon’ble ITAT, Rajkot Bench, 1. The CIT(Appeals] did not considered the fact that the agreements between the farmers and the assessee company are on plain paper and not on non-judicial stamp paper as also not notarized

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:

depreciation, petrol, insurance, repair Krishna Construction Co Vs. DCIT 9 expenses and interest on car loan by stating that some of the expenses are in the nature of personal and personal use of the motor car cannot be ruled out therefore, 1/4th of expenditure was disallowed, without bringing any cogent evidence on record, thus, the addition should not be sustained

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

OM LAMCOAT PVT LTD,MORBI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 286 & 287/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) बनाम M/S. Om Lamcoat Pvt. Ltd. The Acit, 8-A, Kandla National Highway, Vs. Central Circle -1, Opp. Dadashri Nagar, At. Morbi – Aayakar Bhavan, Amruta 363642 Estate, M. G. Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan No. : Aabco8163G (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/09/2025

depreciation as per the provisions of the Companies Act. Thus, the issue of scrutiny of P&L account prepared by the Company is still wide open. Therefore, the assessee's claim regarding not altering the book profit by the amount of gross profit estimated on the unaccounted transactions was not considered by the assessing officer. 9. The assessee also argued