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

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

143(3) on 12.12.2018\ndepreciating the loss of Rs. 5,66 Crores mainly due to claim of depreciation on large investment\nin inventories, building etc.\n(d) However, ld. PCIT in stray cases found the evidences related to the unsecured loans and\nshare capital as insufficient and vide order dated 24.03.2021 set aside the assessment with\ndirection

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : 7.2 From the above, it is transpired that it is the AO who can scope expand the scope of the proceedings initiated under section

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

143(3)", "Section 40A(3)", "Section 36(1)(iii)", "Section 43(1)", "Section 270A", "Section 270A(10b)", "Section 80JJA", "Section 68", "Section 115BBE", "Section 142(1)", "Section 32"], "issues": "Whether the assessment order dated 30.09.2019 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, warranting revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning issues of depreciation

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act in the previous year has been overturned by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act, which signifies that the order was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. This revision under Section 263 establishes that the Revenue has taken a clear and consistent stand

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

depreciation.\n[This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19]\n4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of\nassessee and revenue, as follows.\n5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready\nreference.\n“1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that proceedings u/s 148 culminating\ninto order

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

depreciation in respect of the plinth to the file of the Assessing Officer for the purpose of fresh decision in accordance with law. Since the notice under section 143

M/S. SEASTEM LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 301/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2010-2011 Seastem Ltd., D.C.I.T., First Floor, Vs. Circle-1, Royal Corner, Jamnagar. Dr. Yagnik Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aahcs9428G

143(3) of the Act by the AO vide order dated 28-03-2013. 4.1 Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act dated 21-03-2017 after recording the reason to believe for the escapement of income. The relevant portion of the same reads as under: "Ongoing

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

143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the AO had not made inquiry &verification (1) in terms of provision of section 68 of the Act in respect of equity share capital of Rs.18.50 Crores (2) claim of depreciation

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

RAJSHANTI METALS PVT. LTD.,,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX,, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 176/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 Rajshanti Metals Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of B-42, Gidc, Vs. Income Tax, Shankar Tekri, Jamnagar. Jamnagar.

143(3) accepting the return of income. This fact can be verified from the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act by the AO and the reply of the assessee against such notice. The questions by the AO under section 142(1) of the Act and the reply thereto by the assessee stand as under: Notice under section

SHRI JAYANTILAL P. SATIKUNVER,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.469/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11)

143(3) of the Act which are enumerator below: A. Difference in the quantity of inventories shown as on 1 April 2009 viz a viz 31 March 2009 for 21590.402 gram of 22 karat gold. As on the date of survey, the manual stock register was found and inventorised at S. No. 2 of Annexure B wherein the quantity

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, I.T.A No. 162/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2007-08 Page No 2 M/s. Vishaldeep Spinning Mills Ltd. vs. ITO 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2007-08. 2. The solitary and effective ground raised by the Revenue is the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting

SHRI PRAKASH J. BAGDAI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO-WD-16(1)(1), MUMBAI, PRESENT JURISDICTION WITH ITO-WARD-1 (2)(4), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 138/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2007-2008 Prakash J. Bagdai, I.T.O., C/O M.N. Manvar & Co., Vs. Ward-16(1)(1), Chartered Accountant, Mumbai. 504-Star Plaza, (Present Jurisdiction With Phulchhab Chowk, I.T.O, Rajkot. Ward-1(2)(4), Rajkot.)

depreciation is claimed. " 5. The Ld. C1T(A) - 1, Rajkot dismissed the request for additional evidences under Rule 46A of IT. Rules, 1962 on alleged finding that none of the conditions under Rule 46A is satisfied and dismissed the appeal. 3. At the outset, we note that there was a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee

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

depreciation and interest was deemed not justified.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "143(3)", "263" ], "issues": "Whether the penalty

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 13.12.2011, but later on it was observed that the assessee claimed excess depreciation

THA ACIT, CIRCLE MORBI, MORBI vs. M/S. JAXX VITRIFIED PVT. LTD. , MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

143(3) in Asst. Year 2012-13. Since the said plant & machineries were put to use for less than 180 days in Asst. Year 2012-13, the balance 50% of the additional depreciation (i.e. 10%) was to be allowed in the year under consideration. The appellant has also placed reliance upon various case laws in written submission which is reproduced

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)

143(3). So, action of the re-opening of the assessment under section 263 is not justified. 3.The learned PCIT has grievously erred in making conclusion that Assessee is not eligible to claim Provision of Rs. 20,78,36,400/-, on account of Investment Depreciation

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:

143(1)(a) of the Act. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected under income escaping assessment under section 147 of the Act for calculating the tax liability under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. However, the assessee during the assessment proceedings has also made submissions regarding the admissibility of his claim under the provisions of section