SAURASHTA CEMENT LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

3. Firstly we are taking up the appeal of the Revenue. The assessee is a Public Limited Company engaged in business of manufacturing and sale of Clinker and Cement. The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 17.03.2011 declaring total income at Rs.Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny and after issuing statutory notices the assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. SAURASHTRA CEMENT LTD.,, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

3. Firstly we are taking up the appeal of the Revenue. The assessee is a Public Limited Company engaged in business of manufacturing and sale of Clinker and Cement. The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 17.03.2011 declaring total income at Rs.Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny and after issuing statutory notices the assessee

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.

3 of 14 Asstt. Year 2012-13 not recognised as income as directed by the RBI in its circular. The relevant extract of the circular reads as under: 3.1 Income Recognition Policy 3.1.1 The policy of income recognition has to be objective and based on the record of recovery. Internationally income from non-performing assets (NPA) is not recognised

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)

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 Reserve (Marked to Market). Learned PCIT has failed to consider the RBI circular No. RBI/2013-14/434 RPCD

SMT. ILLABEN JAYANTKUMAR DOSHI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.124/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13

3) of the Act was passed by the A.O. on 10/06/2014 determining NIL total income as returned by you. The reason for selection of the case for scrutiny under CASS was "Large interest income relatable to exempt income(u/s. 14A)”. 3.1. On going through the assessment records, it is noticed that balance in your capital account as opening balance

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. RAJKOT PEOPLES CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed except CO of the assessee in the Asstt

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.

depreciation, if any, is required to be provided for in the accounts. The latest guidelines of the RBI may be referred to for allowing any such claims. 7. The instructions clearly provide for amortisation of premium paid on acquisition of securities when the same are acquired at the rate higher than the face value. Such amortisation would have

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, JAMNAGAR vs. SHRI MILANKUMAR M. POBARU,, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

3 raised by the Revenue reads as under: 3.The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in deleting Rs.9,28,106 /- made by AO on account of disallowance u/s 14A . 17. The issue relates to disallowance of expenses incurred for the purposes of earning incomes exempt from tax u/s 14A of the Act Brief facts relating to the same

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)

section 14A of the Act on the alleged ground that appellant failed to prove one-to-one nexus from bank account that investment has been done entirely from its own funds. (vi) Alleged that assessee (i) paid excessive terminal handling charges to Shreeji Power and Insulators Pvt. Ltd. [SPIPL] and (ii) paid for the quantities which have not been used

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)

section 14A of the Act on the alleged ground that appellant failed to prove one-to-one nexus from bank account that investment has been done entirely from its own funds. (vi) Alleged that assessee (i) paid excessive terminal handling charges to Shreeji Power and Insulators Pvt. Ltd. [SPIPL] and (ii) paid for the quantities which have not been used