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

14 "Accounting for Amalgamations" and recognized goodwill amounting to Rs.80,74,08,346/- and claimed depreciation thereon. The assessee has recorded difference between net value of assets taken over and purchase consideration paid and claimed depreciation on the same. Admittedly, the assessee incurred the cost more than the net book value of assets acquired by it in the scheme

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

THE ACIT, MORBI CIRCLE,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. VISHALDEEP SPINNING MILLA LTD.,, MUMBAI

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

14 of 2001 clarified that the restriction of 8 years for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation had been dispensed with, the unabsorbed depreciation from A.Y. 1997-98 upto the A.Y. 2001-02 got carried forward to the assessment year 2002-03 and became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section

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

depreciation) Same was allowed - Principal Commissioner invoked revision under section 263 on ground that assessee's income included deemed income being unexplained cash credit under section 68 which is not classified under any heads of income under section 14

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, its claim for depreciation on capital assets was to be allowed - Held, yes - Whether, even if amount spent on acquiring depreciable asset was treated as application of income of trust in year of acquisition, depreciation would still be allowable in subsequent years - Held, yes[Para 24] [In favour of assessee].” 13. In the matter of CIT(Exemptions

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 has been claimed per along with copies of bills and mode and date of Annexure-13 payment thereof.  Assessee reply dated 06-12-2018: During the year under consideration Share capital of Rs.18,50,00,000/- has been introduced. The funds were introduced by the directors and shareholders and the same were in turn converted into share capital. Unsecured

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

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.

section 10AA of the Act. The view of the AO was based on the following reasons: Page 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

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 which is evident from the computation of income filed by the assessee which is available on page 13 of the WS filed by the Revenue. Thus, a question may arise if there was no positive income then what was the reason for the assessee to claim the deduction under section 80 IA of the Act. However

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

14-A read with rule 8D will cover up the expenses claimed by the assessee against the agricultural income by diverting to the taxable activity. It is for the reason that the AO has doubted on the source of agricultural income of the assessee whereas the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D deals with the expenses incurred

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

14-A read with rule 8D will cover up the expenses claimed by the assessee against the agricultural income by diverting to the taxable activity. It is for the reason that the AO has doubted on the source of agricultural income of the assessee whereas the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D deals with the expenses incurred

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

14[has reason to believe15] that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment15 for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess15 such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings15 under

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

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

14. The ld.Pr.CIT, again issued show -cause notice, under section 263 of the Act on 30.01.2024, which is reproduced by the ld.Pr.CIT, on page no.4 to 5 of his order, wherein, the ld. PCIT raised the issue, relating to excess stock, the relevant portion of the show -cause notice is reproduced below: “In addition to the issues raised

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

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

14. The ld.Pr.CIT, again issued show -cause notice, under section 263 of the Act on 30.01.2024, which is reproduced by the ld.Pr.CIT, on page no.4 to 5 of his order, wherein, the ld. PCIT raised the issue, relating to excess stock, the relevant portion of the show -cause notice is reproduced below: “In addition to the issues raised

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 GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S RAVJI MANJI SORATHIA &CO.,, ADIPUR-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 148 of the Act dated 24.03.2015. During the course of assessment, the AO was of the view that in facts of the business of the assessee, it cannot be said that motor lorries, tempos, trucks etc. have been used by the assessee for giving on hire, and accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee’s claim of depreciation

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

depreciation on motor car of Rs. 11,97,617/-, it is clarified that all the cars are\nused at Rajkot unit only. In Rudrapur unit 1, depreciation on motor care of 1,54,016/-\n(1,04,546 + 49,470) and those cars at Rudrapar unit 1 only. As all motor car depreciation\nexpenses of respective units borne by, itself

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

Depreciation Chart of Rudrapur Unit:\nNo\nParticulars\nFY 08-09\nFY 09-10\n1\nWDV\n4,14,64,138\n7,85,31,109\n2\nAddition to fixed asset\n5,49,29,277\n3,49,65,836\n3\nTotal\n9,64,13,416\n11,34,96,945\n4\nDepreciation claimed\n1,78,82,307\n1,51,65,107\n5\nWDV