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

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 260 of the Income Tax Act 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. 2.Grievances raised by the Revenue, are as follows. Gandhi Reality(I) Pvt. Ltd 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,18,52,087/-, on account of depreciation claim on goodwill

RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANKS EMPLOYEES M P CREDIT CO-OP. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT/ACIT CIR 1(1), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1) of the Act, the assessee has\nsubmitted its reply, dated 01.12.2020 (vide paper book page nos. 17 to 21), before the\nAssessing Officer, the relevant part of the assessee's reply dated 01.12.2020, is\nreproduced below:\nRajkot District Co.Op. Banks Employees v. DCIT/ACIT\nITA No. 885/Rjt/2024 (AY. 2020-21)\n|| સત્યમેવ જયતે ||\nશ્રી અવધ નાગરિક શરાફી સહકારી મંડળી

SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO OP PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 429/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Surendranagar District Co. Op. Acit, Circle, Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Surendranagar-363035 Plot No.249, Phase 2 Gidc Market Yard Circle, Sursagar Dairy, Wadhwan Road, Surendranagar-363035 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : Heard On 09/10/2025, Refixed For Clarification On 03.11.2025 & Finally Heard On 02.02.2026 : 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

142(1) & 143(2) of the Act were issued on various dates by the assessing officer requiring documents, accounts and other evidences. In response to the above said notices, the assessee submitted required details at the time of assessment proceedings. The books of account were also produced before the assessing officer. The assessee is engaged with Procurement & Distribution of Milk

GOJIYA BHIKHUBHAI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

depreciation.\nHowever, considering the nature of these expenses, as these expenses will give\nenduring benefit to the assessee, therefore, these are capital in nature, therefore\nassessing officer has failed to examine the nature of these expenditure, hence\norder passed by the assessing officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the\ninterest of the revenue.\n26.We have carefully considered

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

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

depreciation. However, considering the nature of these expenses, as these expenses will give enduring benefit to the assessee, therefore, these are capital in nature, therefore assessing officer has failed to examine the nature of these expenditure, hence GojijyaBhikhubhai and Others ITA No.609, 610 and 612/RJT/2024 (AY :2018-19) 14 order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous as well

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

depreciation. However, considering the nature of these expenses, as these expenses will give enduring benefit to the assessee, therefore, these are capital in nature, therefore assessing officer has failed to examine the nature of these expenditure, hence GojijyaBhikhubhai and Others ITA No.609, 610 and 612/RJT/2024 (AY :2018-19) 14 order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous as well

M/S. MADHURAM CONSTRUCTION CO. JUNAGADH,JUNAGADH vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

section 263 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961. On perusal of records, it was noticed by the ld.\nPCIT, that during the previous year 2015-16, relevant to assessment year\n(A.Υ.) 2016-17, the assessee had claimed labour expenses of\nRs.8,50,39,942/- (approximately 19 % of contract work income) in the\nprofit and loss account

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)

depreciation reserve as mentioned above inspite of the fact that the assessee totally failed to submit the details required by him vide notice u/s 142(1) of I.T. Act. The ld.PCIT also observed that during the course of present proceedings, under section

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.

142(1) giving the break-up of “any other amount allowable as deduction” including therein the deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act for special reserve created amounting to Rs.4,49,94,107/-. (Paper-book page No.42); (iii) Detailed computation, being statement showing segment-wise profitability of the bank, of the deduction so claimed (paper-book Page

KUTCH DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,ANJAR - KUTCH vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

142(1) of the Act, the assessee has submitted its reply, dated\n01.12.2020 (vide paper book page nos. 17 to 21), before the Assessing Officer, the\nrelevant part of the assessee's reply dated 01.12.2020, is reproduced below:\nPage 3\nITA Nos.113-114/Rjt/2025 (A.Ys. 18-19 & 20-21\nKutch Dist. Co-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd.\n|| સત્યમેવ જયતે ||\nશ્રી અવધ

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred\nto as \"the Act\") by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi /\nCommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 18.06.2025 & 17.06.2025, which in\nturn arise out of separate orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s.\n144B of the Act, on 29.03.2022 and u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

M/S. SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 142(1) on 23-07-2021, 05-09-2021 and 06-09-2021 and asked to produce the necessary documents/details related to the case, but the assessee did not give any reply. And the required documents were not produced in compliance with the above notices. Now that the time barred period of the case is very near, the assessee

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

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

142(1) of the Act was issued along with detailed questionnaire, on\n15.01.2019. The authorised representative of the assessee, in response to these\nnotices, submitted written submissions and relevant documentary evidences,\nbefore the assessing officer, through ITBA. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, the assessing officer noticed that a sum of Rs.73.99 Crores,\n(Rs.7399.28 lakhs,) has been debited

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

142(1) of the Act was issued on 31.01.2011. At the time of hearing, despite giving several opportunities, the assessee failed to give any details and, therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of low GP under Section 68 of the Act, disallowance under Section 43B of the Act, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, disallowance

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

142(1) of the Act in 'Limited Scrutiny' cases shall remain confined only to the specific reasons/issues for which case has been picked up for scrutiny. Further, the scope of enquiry shall be restricted to the 'Limited Scrutiny' issues. c. These cases shall be completed expeditiously in a limited number of hearings. d. During the course of assessment proceedings

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

142(1) of the\nAct. It is not a show cause notice or a draft assessment order as mandated u/s\n144B(xvi)(a), 144B(xvi)(b), and 144B(xvi)(c) of the Act, the relevant\nprovisions are reproduced below:\n\"Faceless Assessment.\n144B. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision\nof this Act, the assessment, reassessment

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

142(1) of the Act, was again issued on 27/01/2022 & 28/02/2022 respectively, however, there were no compliance of these notices by the assessee. Non -compliant attitude of the assessee, towards various notices issued to the assessee, clearly indicates that the assessee is intentionally avoiding to make any compliance to the notices issued to the assessee, despite the fact that