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

10,075\n4\nElectrical fittings\n31,91,778\n34,27,206\nTotal\n9,64,13,416\n13,13,79,252\nCum Dep claimed\n1,78,82,307\n3,30,47,414\nWDV\n7,85,31,109\n9,83,31,838\nOverall Depreciation Chart of Rudrapur Unit:\nNo Particulars\nFY 08-09\nFY 09-10\n1\nWDV

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

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

10,075\n4\nElectrical fittings\n31,91,778\n34,27,206\n26\nBhavani Industries India LLP\nITA Nos.247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.)\nTotal\n9,64,13,416\n13,13,79,252\nCum Dep claimed\n1,78,82,307\n3,30,47,414\nWDV\n7,85,31,109\n9,83,31,838\nOverall Depreciation Chart

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

10,075\n4\nElectrical fittings\n31,91,778\n34,27,206\n26\nBhavani Industries India LLP\nITA Nos. 247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.)\nTotal\n9,64,13,416\n13,13,79,252\nCum Dep claimed\n1,78,82,307\n3,30,47,414\nWDV\n7,85,31,109\n9,83,31,838\nOverall Depreciation Chart

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

10,075\n4\nElectrical fittings\n31,91,778\n34,27,206\n26\nBhawani Industries India LLP\nITA Nos.247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.)\nTotal\n9,64,13,416\n13,13,79,252\nCum Dep claimed\n1,78,82,307\n3,30,47,414\nWDV\n7,85,31,109\n9,83,31,838\nOverall Depreciation Chart

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

10,075\n4\nElectrical fittings\n31,91,778\n34,27,206\n26\nBhawani Industries India LLP\nITA Nos. 247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.)\nTotal\n9,64,13,416\n13,13,79,252\nCum Dep claimed\n1,78,82,307\n3,30,47,414\nWDV\n7,85,31,109\n9,83,31,838\nOverall Depreciation Chart

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

10,075\n4\nElectrical fittings\n31,91,778\n34,27,206\nTotal\nCum Dep claimed\nWDV\n9,64,13,416\n1,78,82,307\n7,85,31,109\n13,13,79,252\n3,30,47,414\n9,83,31,838\nOverall Depreciation Chart of Rudrapur Unit:\nNo\nParticulars\nFY 08-09\nFY 09-10\n1\nWDV

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

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

31-03- 2012. Regarding the observation of the AO in para 5.3 of the assessment order that 99% of the products are transferred from Rajkot Unit, therefore, Rudrapur Unit is not independent Unit. In this regard, it was submitted that Rudrapur is underdeveloped area where capex oriented infrastructural facilities are not developed hence such facilities are not available. In such

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

31-03- 2012. Regarding the observation of the AO in para 5.3 of the assessment order that 99% of the products are transferred from Rajkot Unit, therefore, Rudrapur Unit is not independent Unit. In this regard, it was submitted that Rudrapur is underdeveloped area where capex oriented infrastructural facilities are not developed hence such facilities are not available. In such

M/S SHREE RAJMOTI INDS.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE A. C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

31,750/- received by the assessee from Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd.. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.1. On appeal against the quantum addition, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. It is thereafter the Assessing Officer proceeded with the levy of penalty by issuing a show cause notice dated

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

31. It is a matter of concern that the AO has in the present case has chosen to\nlabel the order of the DRP to being valid and that is the justification for not\ncomplying with the said order. As already noticed, the DRP, interims of Section\n144C(15)(a) is a collegiums of three Principal Commissioners or the Commissioner

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

31,000/-, by invoking the provision of section 40A(3) of\nthe Act, being the amount paid in cash by the assessee for buying of petrol and\ndiesel from Vrundavan Petrol Pump, on 13/11/2016, and\n(ii) Disallowance of amortization expenses of Rs.70,71,825/-, claimed, treating\nthe same to be capital expenditure, in view of the provision of section

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.

10. The assessee in the year under consideration has amortized the premium paid by it on acquisition of the Government Securities. As per the AO such amortization of premium expenses represent the capital expenditure. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the sum of Rs.68,31,402/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 11. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal

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

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 and investment allowances under section 32AC of the Act submitted that in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee vide annexure -13 furnished complete details of assets purchased. The AO after verification of the same and considering the voluminous of data and being first year of e-assessment allowed the claim of the assessee

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD. RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: us, the error noted in the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned year i.e. AY 2017-18 was that the assessee’s claim of deduction for creation of special reserve from the profit of “eligible business” as per Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had been allowed in excess by the Assessing Officer without properly examining the calculation of the claim submitted by the assessee.

depreciation on assets is "assets used for the purpose of business", in Sec. 36(1)(iii) which allows interest on capital, the words used are "borrowed for the purpose of business', the words used in Section 37 which allows any expenditure “.... wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the business" make it not only abundantly clear but mandatory also

SHRI PRAKASH J. BAGDAI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO-WD-16(1)(1), MUMBAI, PRESENT JURISDICTION WITH ITO-WARD-1 (2)(4), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 138/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2007-2008 Prakash J. Bagdai, I.T.O., C/O M.N. Manvar & Co., Vs. Ward-16(1)(1), Chartered Accountant, Mumbai. 504-Star Plaza, (Present Jurisdiction With Phulchhab Chowk, I.T.O, Rajkot. Ward-1(2)(4), Rajkot.)

10,401 on alleged ground that no interest is charged on loan advances made to family members and associate concerns. 4. The Ld. assessing officer has erred in law and on facts in disallowance of depreciation Rs. 8,97,770 on alleged ground that W.D.V. as on 31/03/2007 as per Balance Sheet and as per depreciation chart is different

SHRI DIPTEN AHINDRA BHOWMICK,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

31-03-2016. However, the AO in the assessment order made disallowances under section 40A (3) of the Act on account of cash payment exceeding Rs. 20000/- in a day. Thus, the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by extending the scope of verification and consequently in making the disallowances on account of cash payment. 10. However the learned CIT (A) confirmed