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

31. Prior to the Finance Act No. 2 of 1996 the unabsorbed depreciation for any year was allowed to be carry forward indefinitely and by a. deeming fiction became allowance of the immediately succeeding year. The Finance Act No. 2 of 1996 restricted the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and set-off to a limit of 8 years, from

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

2), and relied on Section 49(1)(e). However, the Court emphasized that Section 47 excludes the transfer of a capital asset in an approved scheme of amalgamation. The Court also highlighted that the provisions referred to by the assessee are in a Chapter related to "Capital Gains," whereas an approved scheme of amalgamation operates by law, as recognized

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

31, 34, and 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, these admissions are binding and serve as conclusive evidence against the assessee's claim. They establish that the necessary statutory requirements for claiming the deduction were not met, and hence, the deduction claimed is void. The principles of estoppel and relevance further strengthen the case of the Income Tax Department, supporting

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)

depreciation of land cost of windmill to the extent of Rs.4,05,600/- and allowing the said amount as rent on monthly basis. [ This is ground No.3 of cross objection No. 23, Ground No.3 of cross objection No.24, Ground No.2 of cross objection No. 25, Ground No.2 of cross objection No. 26] 5. Now, we shall take above, Revenue

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)

depreciation of land cost of windmill to the extent of Rs.4,05,600/- and allowing the said amount as rent on monthly basis. [ This is ground No.3 of cross objection No. 23, Ground No.3 of cross objection No.24, Ground No.2 of cross objection No. 25, Ground No.2 of cross objection No. 26] 5. Now, we shall take above, Revenue

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)

depreciation of land cost of windmill to the extent of Rs.4,05,600/- and allowing the said amount as rent on monthly basis. [ This is ground No.3 of cross objection No. 23, Ground No.3 of cross objection No.24, Ground No.2 of cross objection No. 25, Ground No.2 of cross objection No. 26] 5. Now, we shall take above, Revenue

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)

depreciation of land cost of windmill to the extent of Rs.4,05,600/- and allowing the said amount as rent on monthly basis. [ This is ground No.3 of cross objection No. 23, Ground No.3 of cross objection No.24, Ground No.2 of cross objection No. 25, Ground No.2 of cross objection No. 26] 5. Now, we shall take above, Revenue

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)

depreciation of land cost of windmill to the extent of Rs.4,05,600/- and allowing the said amount as rent on monthly basis. [ This is ground No.3 of cross objection No. 23, Ground No.3 of cross objection No.24, Ground No.2 of cross objection No. 25, Ground No.2 of cross objection No. 26] 5. Now, we shall take above, Revenue

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.

section 142(1) of the Act dated 31-01-2014 2. Please furnish N.P./turnover and GP/turnover ratio for the AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 with reason for decline. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 7. Please furnish complete postal addresses and confirmation of new unsecured loan. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 9. Books of accounts alongwith stock registers. Reply dated 15-02-2014: 2. Gross

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

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

section 32(l)(iia) the allowable depreciation is 20%. The assessee claimed 10% additional depreciation in first year as machinery was put to use for less than 180 days and balance additional depreciation was claimed in the subsequent year. It is also seen that the issue has been decided by Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad A bench in the case

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

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

31-03-2016. However, the AO in the assessment order made disallowances under section 40A (3) of the Act on account of cash payment exceeding Rs. 20000/- in a day. Thus, the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by extending the scope of verification and consequently in making the disallowances on account of cash payment. 10. However the learned CIT (A) confirmed

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

31. It is a matter of concern that the AO has in the present case has chosen to\nlabel the order of the DRP to being valid and that is the justification for not\ncomplying with the said order. As already noticed, the DRP, interims of Section\n144C(15)(a) is a collegiums of three Principal Commissioners or the Commissioner

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ADDI. CIT, RANGE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

2)(a)(ii) vide Notification No. 283/2006. In the first year\nthat is, assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10, the assessee- firm had not made any\nclaim under section 80-IC, being loss year but started to claim under section 80-\nIC of the Act, from assessment year (AY) 2010-11 and since then assessee\nfirm is claiming deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSINER OF IINCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

2)(a)(ii) vide Notification No. 283/2006. In the first year\nthat is, assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10, the assessee- firm had not made any\nclaim under section 80-IC, being loss year but started to claim under section 80-\nIC of the Act, from assessment year (AY) 2010-11 and since then assessee\nfirm is claiming deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

2)(a)(ii) vide Notification No. 283/2006. In the first year\nthat is, assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10, the assessee- firm had not made any\nclaim under section 80-IC, being loss year but started to claim under section 80-\nIC of the Act, from assessment year (AY) 2010-11 and since then assessee-\nfirm is claiming deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

2)(a)(ii) vide Notification No. 283/2006. In the first year\nthat is, assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10, the assessee- firm had not made any\nclaim under section 80-IC, being loss year but started to claim under section 80-\nIC of the Act, from assessment year (AY) 2010-11 and since then assessee\nfirm is claiming deduction