THE ITO, WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. M/S D. JEWEL,, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.15/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Income Tax Officer, M/S. D. Jewel, Ward-2, Vs. 1-Shishu Mangal Road, Junagadh. Gandhigram, Junagadh.

4 of 14 Asstt. Year 2013-14 i. On verification of list of purchases, it was found that the assessee had purchased 22K and 18K gold ornaments in bulk quantity weighing 13,932.59 gms and 606.02 gms valued at Rs. 2,57,39,445/- and Rs. 32,59,881/- respectively from its sister concern. Therefore it was purchasing the finished

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

depreciation in respect of leased out assets had been allowed in earlier years, there being no change in circumstances, following rule of consistency, said claim was to be allowed in relevant year also” (b) CIT(E) vs Gujarat Lion Conservation Society (2024) 166 taxmann.com 430 (Gujarat). THE ACIT CIR.1(1) RAJKOT “Where assessee-trust during year received certain amount from

THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S SRV METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 10B of the Act amounting to Rs.43,72,643/-, the said exemption was already allowed in A.Y. 2006-07 and, therefore, the Revenue cannot take a different stand in this particular year. The assessee has given all the details and the same was taken cognisance by the CIT(A). Thus, there is no need to interfere with the same

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)

depreciation could not give rise to any question of concealment of income Whether Tribunal was right in so holding - Held, yes [Para 13] [In favour of assessee]” 8.2. The Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. reported in [2021] 132 taxmann.com 42 (Bombay) held as follows: “Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

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

10b) of the Act which state that where the total income determined under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section or assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order is loss, the amount of tax calculated on the under- reported income as if it were the total income. (ii) Explanation along with documentary evidences in regard to the actual