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

12. The Assessee also submitted before the assessing officer that the Amendments made by Finance Act, 2021 in relation to depreciation on Goodwill, being prospective in nature, makes it clear that the depreciation on goodwill Gandhi Reality(I) Pvt. Ltd claimed by the assessee forming part of its block of assets, as on, March 31, 2018, should be allowed

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]

depreciation of Rs.29,51,998/- treating the same as double deduction claimed by the Appellant. 3. Without prejudice to above, the Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in not allowing credit of 15% of gross receipts in terms of Section 12

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

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing such\naccounts including [statement of profit and loss] for such financial year or part of such\nfinancial year falling within the relevant previous year.\nExplanation [1].—For the purposes of this section, \"book profit\" means the [profit] as\nshown in the [statement of profit and loss] for the relevant previous year prepared\nunder

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

depreciation and will not be termed as double deduction under the Income Tax Statute. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. Ground no.1 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 10. As regards ground no.2, the Assessing Officer has not allowed to carry forward of deficit of Rs.4,34,17,907/-, the contentions

KONARK OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in\nabove terms

12,930/-. The original\nassessment proceedings were completed u/ s. 143(3) of the Act vide assessment\norder dated 08.01.2015 assessing total income of the appellant at Rs.65,78,330/-\nThereafter, the Honorable PCIT-1, Rajkot passed a revision order u/s. 263 of the\nAct on 21.03.2017 and set-aside the original assessment order passed u/s. 143(3)\nfor

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

12. We also find that amendment for not allowing set off of loss against the income determined under section 68/69/69A/698/69C/69D of the Act is effective from 01.04.2017, whereas the assessment years in assessee's case is 2015-16. Therefore, the assessee under consideration is eligible for Page 7 of 10 Ashvin D Jadav set off of loss. In this connection

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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, , GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH vs. M/S. RIDDHI SIDDHI JEWELLERS, GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue isdismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-2 Vs. M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers Gandhidham. Shop No.1, Plot No.68 Bba (Sough) Gandhidham-Kutch. 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2023

depreciation allowance in amalgamation or demerger. Similarly section 14 72AA provides such set off and carry forward in the case of banking company and sec.72AB provides set off in the case of Co-op. banks. Section 73 provides for treatment of loss in speculation business. Section 74 provides for treatment of loss under the head capital gains and section 74Aprovides

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

THE ACIT CIRCLE- 1 (1), RAJKOT vs. M/S. MICRO MELT PVT. LTD. , SHAPAR (VERAVAL), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

12,564/-, and out of the same, unabsorbed depreciation amounting to ₹ 8,33,500/- was set off by the assessee against returned income for assessment year 1996-97. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee is entitled to set off unabsorbed depreciation of assessment year 1996-97 in the impugned assessment

ALPHA HI-TECH FUEL LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SNR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.68/Rjt/2009 (धििाधरणणवध/ Assessment Year 2005-06) Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Limited, बिाम/ D.C.I.T, Station Road, Surendranagar Vs. Lakhtar, Dist. Surendranagar, Gujarat-382775 स्ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4258P (अपीला््/Appellant) (प्य््/ Respondent) अपीला््थरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R Shri B.D Gupta, Sr. D.R. प्य््करथरसे/Respondent By: सुिणाईकरतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 08/06/2023 घोवणाकरतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/09/2023 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

depreciation claimed by the assessee in different year as well as the deductions claimed under section 80I and 80JJA the of the Act in the earlier assessment years. Thus, the period of 10 years for claiming the benefit of deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the Act has already expired from the initial assessment year. 5.1 The AO also

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)

12- 10-2013 admitting total income of Rs. 1,09,87,527/-. Assessment was completed making a disallowance the claim of deduction u/s. 10(34) namely dividend income of Rs. 10,31,750/- 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

M/S WESTERN INDIA CERAMICS P. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, ground number 4 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 197 of the Act for a lower rate of TDS on rent. Accordingly, the assessee has correctly deducted TDS on rental payments as above. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “6.3 After considering the facts of the case and remand report of the AO it was difficult to accept the contention

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 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 2,62,50,000/- 2. Claim made during assessment

PALLAV,JAMNAGAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2, JAMNAGAR

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

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

depreciation etc. In such a case, the provisions of Section 147 of the Act, would be applicable and the assessment can be reopened. The very fact that reasons are recorded and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued, goes to show that the assessing officer had applied his mind and was satisfied himself about the re-opening

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.

depreciation account, it was found that there was no plant and machinery used in the manufacturing of gold ornaments purchased. The items, shown in the financial statements under the head plant and machinery were representing CCTV, Godrej Safe, Excide Battery, Computer, EPABX, Water Pump etc. which are not used in the manufacturing activities. iii. To carry out the manufacturing activity

THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

12 months and free maintenance was for a period of 60 months after completion of the project. The terms and conditions of the contract were similar to those as mentioned in the contracts entered by the government or by its agencies for developing any infrastructure facility for public utility. After having regard to the terms and conditions of the agreement

BACKBONE ENTERPRISE LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

12 months and free maintenance was for a period of 60 months after completion of the project. The terms and conditions of the contract were similar to those as mentioned in the contracts entered by the government or by its agencies for developing any infrastructure facility for public utility. After having regard to the terms and conditions of the agreement

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.

section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rule as the assessee suo moto have made disallowances to the extent of exempt income. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A). Hence the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Page 12 of 14 Asstt. Year 2012-13 21. The last