THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S P.C. PATEL & CO.,, BHUJ

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2014- 15. I.T.A No. 194/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2 ACIT Vs. M/s. P C Patel & Co. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Partnership Firm engaged in the business of Earth

SALIM ABDULLAH RATHOD,MUNDRA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 277/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Salim Abdullah Rathod, Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 6316, Swami Vivekanand Nagar New Vs. Gandhidham Kutch, Gujarat Swaminarayan Temple Road Bhutda 370465 Wadi, Gujarat, 370465 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adnpp3110E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation @ 30% as claimed by the assessee. Further, we note that CIT has allowed partly to the extent of 15%. We are of the view after rejecting the books of accounts, no addition has been made by the AO under Section

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S H.D. ENTERPRISE,, BHUJ

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysr. Asstt. Name Of Name Of Ita No. No. Year Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. H.D. Income-Tax, Enterprise, 1St Floor, Pooja 1. 110/Rjt/2016 2011-12 Gandhidham Circle, Complex, Station Gandhidham- Road, Bhuj-Kutch Kutch Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2. 205/Rjt/2016 2012-13 Gandhidham -Do- Circle, Gandhidham- Kutch 3. 237/Rjt/2016 2013-14 -Do- -Do- (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. N. Maurya, Cit Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 25/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 11.01.2016, 03.03.2016 & 25.04.2016 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Rajkot Arising Out Of The Orders All Dated 24.03.2014 Passed By The Ita Nos.110,205&237/Rjt/2016 A.Y.2011-12,2012-13&2013-14 Assessing Officer, Gandhidham Under Sections 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since All The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & The Issues Are Identical, These Are Heard Analogously & Are Being Disposed By A Common Order.

sections 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the act”) for A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 respectively. Since all the appeals relate to the same assessee, and the issues are identical, these are heard analogously and are being disposed by a common order. ITA No. 110/Rjt/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 is taken

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S H.D. ENTERPRISE,, BHUJ

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysr. Asstt. Name Of Name Of Ita No. No. Year Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. H.D. Income-Tax, Enterprise, 1St Floor, Pooja 1. 110/Rjt/2016 2011-12 Gandhidham Circle, Complex, Station Gandhidham- Road, Bhuj-Kutch Kutch Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2. 205/Rjt/2016 2012-13 Gandhidham -Do- Circle, Gandhidham- Kutch 3. 237/Rjt/2016 2013-14 -Do- -Do- (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. N. Maurya, Cit Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 25/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 11.01.2016, 03.03.2016 & 25.04.2016 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Rajkot Arising Out Of The Orders All Dated 24.03.2014 Passed By The Ita Nos.110,205&237/Rjt/2016 A.Y.2011-12,2012-13&2013-14 Assessing Officer, Gandhidham Under Sections 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since All The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & The Issues Are Identical, These Are Heard Analogously & Are Being Disposed By A Common Order.

sections 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the act”) for A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 respectively. Since all the appeals relate to the same assessee, and the issues are identical, these are heard analogously and are being disposed by a common order. ITA No. 110/Rjt/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 is taken

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S H.D. ENTERPRISE,, BHUJ

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysr. Asstt. Name Of Name Of Ita No. No. Year Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. H.D. Income-Tax, Enterprise, 1St Floor, Pooja 1. 110/Rjt/2016 2011-12 Gandhidham Circle, Complex, Station Gandhidham- Road, Bhuj-Kutch Kutch Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2. 205/Rjt/2016 2012-13 Gandhidham -Do- Circle, Gandhidham- Kutch 3. 237/Rjt/2016 2013-14 -Do- -Do- (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. N. Maurya, Cit Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 25/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 11.01.2016, 03.03.2016 & 25.04.2016 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Rajkot Arising Out Of The Orders All Dated 24.03.2014 Passed By The Ita Nos.110,205&237/Rjt/2016 A.Y.2011-12,2012-13&2013-14 Assessing Officer, Gandhidham Under Sections 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since All The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & The Issues Are Identical, These Are Heard Analogously & Are Being Disposed By A Common Order.

sections 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the act”) for A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 respectively. Since all the appeals relate to the same assessee, and the issues are identical, these are heard analogously and are being disposed by a common order. ITA No. 110/Rjt/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 is taken

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

depreciation cannot be restricted to 50 % and it has to be allowed in succeeding years if it is not allowed full in the relevant year. For the sake of convenience the relevant portion of the order is as under:- "17. We have heard both the sides on this issue. Section 32(1)(iia) inserted by Finance (No. 2) with effect

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

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

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

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.

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. 14.3 From the above circular, it is revealed that the assessee is entitled to amortise the amount paid over and above the face value of the investments in the manner as discussed above

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

15% allowed by the AO. 3. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts to appreciate that if the dumpers/vehicles were given on hire, then the assessee should have earned income from out of hiring of these vehicles. 4. It is therefore prayed that the order of the Ld CIT(A) be set aside and that

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

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.

15,361/- as an exempt under section 10(34) of the Act. The ld.AO in a brief finding observed that the expenditure attributable to earning of this exempt income deserves to be disallowed under section 14A of the Act r.w.s Rule 8D of IT Rules. He worked out a sum of Rs.83,352/- for disallowance. On appeal, the ld.CIT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 बनाम Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Income Tax Vs. Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 Circle-1(1), Rajkot Pan : Aadcg6113A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025

depreciation of Rs. 19,15,32,208/-, as per I.T. Act. Further, the company has increased its profit by Rs. 1,87,86,147/- (Rs. 21,03,18,355/- less Rs. 19,15,32,208/-) in income tax return (ITR). In support of this, the assessee has submitted before the assessing officer the copy of computation of income for assessment

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

depreciation of Rs. 19,15,32,208/-, as per I.T. Act. Further, the\ncompany has increased its profit by Rs. 1,87,86,147/- (Rs. 21,03,18,355/- less\nRs. 19,15,32,208/-) in income tax return (ITR). In support of this, the assessee\nhas submitted before the assessing officer the copy of computation of income\nfor assessment

VASANTABEN RAMESHBHAI SHERASHIYA,,MORBI vs. ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, MORBI CIRCLE,, MORBI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकरअपीलसं.Ita No. 48/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Sh. Vasantaben R Vs. Acit Sherashiya Morbi Circle, Surbhi, Subhas Nagar, Morbi Ravapar Road, Morbi

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is against the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the penalty levied by the ACIT. 3. The fact in brief is that assessment u/s. 143(3) was completed on 25.02.2016 determining total income at Rs. 47,15

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

15 89 169 Depreciation Related to Mfg. 67 68 087 77 55 982 1 73 60 002 1 93 45 151 (Increase )/Decrease in stock Opening stock By product 1 28 206 2 86 589 Work in process 5 86 46 481 6 63 78 651 Finished goods 1 11 79 254 77 63 967 Total