THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. TARABEN VRUJLAL MEHTA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION TRUST,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

5. The Ld. DR submitted that as regards ground no.1 related to allowing the claim of depreciation of Rs.55,32,155/- to the assessee which amounts to double deduction as 100% deduction was allowed to the assessee as application of income, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of Lissie Medical Institutions

THE DHARANGADHRA PEOPLE'S CO. OP. BANK LTD.,,DHRANGADHRA vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.130-131/Rjt/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ The Dharangadhra People’S D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Kalpvarksh, Mandvi Chowk, Surendranagar. Dhrangadhara, Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat1192R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 20/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 01/02/2017, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 16/02/2015 & 27/11/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.S) 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

11,71,000/- 51,00,000/- 51,00,000/- Depreciation reserve fund Bad and 39,29,000/- doubtful debt fund Thereafter the assessee has further credited the above funds with the following sources up to 31.03.2012:- Madhav-pura Mercantile Co-operative Bank Investment Depreciation Fund up to 31.03.2012 Date of deposit Source of above Amount of Total fund Closing balance

SWAMINARAYAN SEVA NIKETAN,,JUNAGADH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-2,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) [Through Virtual Court]

section 11(1)(a), yet depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased - Held, yes [Para 5] [In favour of assessee

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

5. The assessing officer noticed that assessee-company, that is, Gandhi Realty (India) Pvt Ltd, [PAN:No. AAACD7535Q), earstwhile, J.B. Realties Pvt Ltd, has claimed depreciation of Rs. 20,18,52,087/- (being 25% of Rs. 80,74,08,346), on intangible asset, that is, on Goodwill. The erstwhile M/s. Gandhi Realty (India) Pvt Ltd, (PAN AACCG5189K) and M/s Crystal

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

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

section 11(1)(a), then assessee cannot claim depreciation on value of such assets. 7. That Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee has filed written submission on 18/02/2025. The details of claim of deduction made u/s36(1)(viii) by the Appellant are as under: Sr. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1. Claim made in the return of income

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

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ADDI. CIT, RANGE-2, RAJKOT, 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 0 6,59,264 Total Income Manufacturing

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

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

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 0 6,59,264 Total Income Manufacturing

ASSISTANT COMMISSINER OF IINCOME 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 0 6,59,264 Total Income Manufacturing

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, 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 0 6,59,264 Total Income Manufacturing

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)

5 & ITA 349 & 379/Ahd/2016 . A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 (iv) Alleged that the assessee had incurred share issue expenses of Rs. 2,61,000/- in normal course and the same is not fit into criteria laid down u/s. 35D of the Act and accordingly disallowed the same. (v) Disallowed Rs. 30,94,549/- by invoking provisions of section

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)

5 & ITA 349 & 379/Ahd/2016 . A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 (iv) Alleged that the assessee had incurred share issue expenses of Rs. 2,61,000/- in normal course and the same is not fit into criteria laid down u/s. 35D of the Act and accordingly disallowed the same. (v) Disallowed Rs. 30,94,549/- by invoking provisions of section

RAMESHBHAI DEVRAJBHAI KHICHADIA,RAJKOT vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 51/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-2013

11 December 2021 alleging that the assessee has declared long-term capital gain at ₹ 95,22,429/- which was claimed as exempted under section 10(38) of the Act. As per the learned PCIT, such long-term capital gain was bogus in nature but the same was not verified by the AO during the assessment proceedings. Thus it was proposed

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

section 40(8) was inserted by the Finance No.(2) Act, 2004, even though the Finance Act, 2012 had not specifically stated that proviso is retrospective in nature. The High Court affirmed the ratio laid down by the Agra Tribunal and held that said provisos is declaratory and curative in nature and ha retrospective effect from 1st April

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)

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. The ld.PCIT had noticed the first issue from the assessment records that assessee (M/s Saurashtra Gramin Bank) during the previous year 2016-17 relevant to assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18, had made provision for an amount of Rs. 20,78,36,400/-, on account of "Investment Depreciation Reserve" as allowable expenditure