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

section 80P of the Act\nAmt.\nAmt.\n24,42,937.00\nParticulars\nSection 80P(2)(a)(i) - Income received on Loan which has\nbeen given to members of the Co-operative Society \"Shri\nAvadh Nagrik Sarafi Sahkari Mandali Limited\"\nNet Profit during the A.Y.2018-19\n32,76,731.00\nAdd:\nDisallowance as per P&L Account\n10,59,992.00\nVehicle Depreciation

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

depreciation pertaining to A.Y. 1997-98 could be allowed to be carried forward and set off after a period of eight years or it would be governed by Section 32 as amended by Finance Act 2001 ? The reason given by the Assessing Officer under section 147 is that Section 32(2

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

depreciation. The assessee argued that the provisions of Section 49 of the Act Gandhi Reality(I) Pvt. Ltd apply, pointing out the definition of "cost of acquisition" in Section 55(2

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

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) - Income received on Loan which has\nbeen given to members of the Co-operative Society \"Shri\nAvadh Nagrik Sarafi Sahkari Mandali Limited\"\nAmt.\nAmt.\n24,42,937.00\nNet Profit during the A.Y.2018-19\n32,76,731.00\nAdd:\nDisallowance as per P&L Account\n10,59,992.00\nVehicle Depreciation

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 35D of the Act.[ This is ground No.2 of cross objection No. 23 and ground No. 2 of cross objection No. 24.] (ii) Ground No.2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of depreciation

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 35D of the Act.[ This is ground No.2 of cross objection No. 23 and ground No. 2 of cross objection No. 24.] (ii) Ground No.2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of depreciation

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 35D of the Act.[ This is ground No.2 of cross objection No. 23 and ground No. 2 of cross objection No. 24.] (ii) Ground No.2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of depreciation

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 35D of the Act.[ This is ground No.2 of cross objection No. 23 and ground No. 2 of cross objection No. 24.] (ii) Ground No.2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of depreciation

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 35D of the Act.[ This is ground No.2 of cross objection No. 23 and ground No. 2 of cross objection No. 24.] (ii) Ground No.2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of depreciation

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

sections 147r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by\nthis consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the\nfacts narrated

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

sections 147r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by\nthis consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the\nfacts narrated

DR. SUBHASH PETHALJI CHAVDA AHIR KELVANI MANDAL,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-2,, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

2½% and they also claimed depreciation on furniture @ 5%. The question which arose before the Court for determination was : whether depreciation could be denied to the assessee, as expenditure on acquisition of the assets had been treated as application of income in the year of acquisition? It was held by the Bombay High Court that section

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

sections 147r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by\nthis consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the\nfacts narrated

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

sections 147r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by\nthis consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the\nfacts narrated

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT., RAJKOT

sections 147r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by\nthis consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the\nfacts narrated

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

sections 147r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by\nthis consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the\nfacts narrated

THE ASST. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S RAVI TECHNOFORGE PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Acit, Cir.1 Vs. M/S.Ravi Techno Forge P. Ltd. Rajkot. Plot No.7/8, Survey No.211 Veraval Shapar Ind. Area Rajkot Gondal Highway, Tal. Kotdasangani Dist. Rajkot. Pan : Aadcs 1608 N 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/06/2023

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short] for the Asst.Year2014-15. 2. The grounds raised in the appeal are as under: “1. The learned CIT(A)-2, Rajkot has erred in law and on facts in deleting the additions made on account of disallowance of additional 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

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of additional depreciation in the current year where as the plant and machinery was required and installed in ACIT vs. M/s. Jaxx Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2013-14 the previous year, contrary to the provisions of Section