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

20% additional depreciation on the said machinery as in section 32(l)(iia) the allowable depreciation is 20%. The assessee

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)

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

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

20,442/- which was on account of\nunabsorbed depreciation. It is seen that commercial production has commenced on\n01/10/2016. In chart of depreciation as per Income tax Act, 1961 it is found that depreciation\nhas been claimed in respect of newly added assets shown for Rs.73,72,28,858/- which were\nacquired prior to 30.09.2016 with the opening

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

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:

20 January 1993 which has taken over the running business of partnership firm namely M/s Nemi Briquettes Industries from April 1993. The assessee right from the inception has been either claiming, in most of the assessment years, hundred percent depreciation or the benefit under section

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

Section 148 of the Act dated 24.03.2015. During the course of assessment, the AO was of the view that in facts of the business of the assessee, it cannot be said that motor lorries, tempos, trucks etc. have been used by the assessee for giving on hire, and accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee’s claim of depreciation

SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

depreciation which would be required to be set off\nagainst the profit of the relevant previous year as if the provisions of clause (b) of the first\nproviso to sub-section (1) of section 205 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), are\napplicable.\n(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall affect the determination of the amounts

SHRI RAJESH KARSHANBHAI VEKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WD-2(1)(5), RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.173/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya, Income Tax Officer, Ward- Plot No. 266, Kuvadva Gidc, Opp. 2,(1)(5), Rajkot, Aayakar Vs. Riddhi Agro Industries, Kuvadva, Bhavan, Race Course Ring Rajkot-360003 Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acxpp9434A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08 /01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha Jm; Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against Order Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi /Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) , Vide Order Dated 25.012024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ For Short) Dated 26.03.2015 U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Hereunder Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 2. The Id. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As To The "Cit(A)"] Erred On Facts As Also In Law Confirming Addition Of Rs.86,68,718/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Alleged Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act On The Alleged Ground That The Appellant Failed To Prove Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of Various Parties From Whom Unsecured Loan Of Rs.86,68,718/-Were Ita No. 173-Rjt-2024 Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya

Section 36, with up to 1 month imprisonment and fine of ₹1,000 per offense. 4. For the judicial precedent, the principle that fraud committed in one place cannot be used as evidence elsewhere is supported by S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1, where the court held that fraudulent documents cannot form the basis of any legal

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

20% deduction is calculated on the profits of the eligible business. Without separate disclosure, determining the exact amount becomes challenging. 2. Facilitating Assessment: Separate figures enable the assessing officer to verify the deduction efficiently, reducing the likelihood of disputes and reassessments. 3. Ensuring Integrity of Financial Reporting: Segregating eligible business profits upholds the integrity of financial statements, reflecting true

M/S WESTERN INDIA CERAMICS P. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, ground number 4 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

20,000/-. Moreover, two parties furnished certificate under section 197 of the Act for a lower rate of TDS on rent. Accordingly, the assessee has correctly deducted TDS on rental payments as above. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “6.3 After considering the facts of the case and remand report

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

section 263 of the Act. Thus, the assessing officer was directed to revise the assessment order. 19.Aggrieved by the order of ld.Pr.CIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. GojijyaBhikhubhai and Others ITA No.609, 610 and 612/RJT/2024 (AY :2018-19) 12 20. About the issue of excess business stock, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that during the survey proceedings

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

section 263 of the Act. Thus, the assessing officer was directed to revise the assessment order. 19.Aggrieved by the order of ld.Pr.CIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. GojijyaBhikhubhai and Others ITA No.609, 610 and 612/RJT/2024 (AY :2018-19) 12 20. About the issue of excess business stock, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that during the survey proceedings

PALLAV,JAMNAGAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

depreciation etc. In such a case, the provisions of Section 147 of the Act, would be applicable and the assessment can be reopened. The very fact that reasons are recorded and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued, goes to show that the assessing officer had applied his mind and was satisfied himself about the re-opening

FRIENDS SALT WORKS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES,GANDHIDHAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 29.12.2019. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows (ITA No. 99/Rjt/2023- A.Y. 2015-16) : “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,63,690/- being the depreciation claimed

FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALLIED INDS.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE GANDHIDHAM,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 29.12.2019. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows (ITA No. 99/Rjt/2023- A.Y. 2015-16) : “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,63,690/- being the depreciation claimed

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD. RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: us, the error noted in the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned year i.e. AY 2017-18 was that the assessee’s claim of deduction for creation of special reserve from the profit of “eligible business” as per Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had been allowed in excess by the Assessing Officer without properly examining the calculation of the claim submitted by the assessee.

depreciation on assets is "assets used for the purpose of business", in Sec. 36(1)(iii) which allows interest on capital, the words used are "borrowed for the purpose of business', the words used in Section 37 which allows any expenditure “.... wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the business" make it not only abundantly clear but mandatory also

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

Depreciation claim on Plant & Machinery amounting to Rs.33,85,988/-, disallowance of expenditure incurred as Entertainment of Expenses amounting to Rs.72,054/-, disallowance of Contribution of PWD Road of Rs.52,34,500/-, disallowance out of Licence/Registration Fees amounting to Rs.11,34,064/-, disallowance under Section 40(A)(9) of the Act in respect of salary and other expenses amounting

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

Depreciation claim on Plant & Machinery amounting to Rs.33,85,988/-, disallowance of expenditure incurred as Entertainment of Expenses amounting to Rs.72,054/-, disallowance of Contribution of PWD Road of Rs.52,34,500/-, disallowance out of Licence/Registration Fees amounting to Rs.11,34,064/-, disallowance under Section 40(A)(9) of the Act in respect of salary and other expenses amounting