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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

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

RAMESHBHAI DEVRAJBHAI KHICHADIA,RAJKOT vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 51/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-2013

22,429/- which was claimed as exempted under section 10(38) of the Act. As per the learned PCIT, such long-term capital gain was bogus in nature but the same was not verified by the AO during the assessment proceedings. Thus it was proposed by the learned PCIT to hold the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.185/Rjt/2023

section or assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order is loss, the amount of tax calculated on the under-reported income as if it were the total income. Hence, non-levy of penalty is an error which is also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, Show- Cause Notice for initiation of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have

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

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

22 Cts ornaments including labour Rs. 70,21,437/- 3. Amount of excess cash found in shop Rs. 1,47,506/- 4. Amount of expenses incurred for shop renovation Rs. 7,20,600/- Total Rupees Rs.20,090,073/- It has been clearly understood by all the partners that the firm shall be responsible for payment of the tax on above

AMRELI JILLA MADHYASTH SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,AMRELI vs. THE DCIT-ACIT-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.548/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Sahakari The Dcit/Acit-2(1) बनाम Bank Ltd. Rajkot. Bhojalram Bhavan Vs. Rajmahel Road Amreli 365 601. Pan : Aaata 2737 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M.Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act of an amount of Rs.57,00,750/- being the lower of (i) Rs.39,55,57,997/- being 7.5% of total income after depreciation i.e. (a) Rs.32,22

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.

22,390/- vii)'that depreciation decreased by Rs.42,487/- viii)'that sale price increased by Rs.43.76/- ix) that purchase price increased by Rs.45.27/- x) that Mfg. & Adm. Exp. increased by Rs.5.54/- xi) that over all there is decrease of 7.51 per kg. xii)'that total sale of 14,46,472 kgs. when multiplied by above over all decrease

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.

22. Therefore, in terms of the above decision, where an assessee makes provision for NPA and seeks deduction of such amount under section 36(1)(vii) or section 37 of the Act, then in the computation of income, the RBI Guidelines would have no role to play, and hence, an add back. Insofar as income recognition is concerned, the Supreme

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

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

depreciation on value of such assets. 7. That Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee has filed written submission on 18/02/2025. The details of claim of deduction made u/s36(1)(viii) by the Appellant are as under: Sr. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1. Claim made in the return of income 2,62,50,000/- 2. Claim made during assessment

SHRI JAYANTILAL P. SATIKUNVER,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.469/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11)

22 Ct gold ornaments is to be assessed at Rs.34,96,350/- (Rs.161.94 per gms). Under the circumstances, the Assessing Officer is directed to make an addition of A.Y.2010-11 Rs.1,43,09,724/- on account of unaccounted excess golg ornaments recorded in opening stock as on 01/04/2009. The assessee has not only concealed but also furnished inaccurate particulars

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

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

UMA COTTON & OIL INDUSTRIES,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), RANGE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Rjt/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009

depreciation for A.Y. 2006-07 from the assessed income. The same may kindly be allowed. 6.0 Your Honor's appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal. 2. The effective issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order

THE ITO, WARD 1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S PAVAN CONSTRUCTION CO, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 68 of the Act. ITA Nos.760 & 761/Rjt/2010 And CO No.32 & 33/Rjt/2010 M/s. Pavan Cosnt. Co. A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2006-07 6.1 The ld DR vehemently supported the order of AO. 7. On the other hand the ld. AR before us submitted that the amount from M/s. Sutreja & Co. was received by the assessee through banking channel. The amount

ALPHA HI-TECH FUEL LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SNR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.578-581/Rjt/2008 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2000-01 To 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.67/Rjt/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05) बनाम/ Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Limited, Cit(Appeals)-Xvi, Station Road, Lakhtar, Dist. Ahmedabad. Vs. Surrendranagar, Gujarat-382775 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4258P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar Das, Dr. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 16/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Rajkot [Cit(A) In Short] Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2000-01 To 2004-05. Ita No.578-581/Rjt/2008 A.Y.S 2000-01 To 2004-05 First We Take Assessee’S Appeal Bearing Ita No. 578/Rjt/2008. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

depreciation, gross total income, net profit etc is available on 10 of the learned CIT (A) order. The impugned chart clearly reflects the fact that the assessee has commenced its commercial production long back. Therefore, we disagree with the contention of the assessee that it started its commercial production effective from the assessment year 1999- 2,000. 15.1 Now coming

ALPHA HI-TECH FUEL LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.578-581/Rjt/2008 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2000-01 To 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.67/Rjt/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05) बनाम/ Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Limited, Cit(Appeals)-Xvi, Station Road, Lakhtar, Dist. Ahmedabad. Vs. Surrendranagar, Gujarat-382775 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4258P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar Das, Dr. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 16/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Rajkot [Cit(A) In Short] Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2000-01 To 2004-05. Ita No.578-581/Rjt/2008 A.Y.S 2000-01 To 2004-05 First We Take Assessee’S Appeal Bearing Ita No. 578/Rjt/2008. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

depreciation, gross total income, net profit etc is available on 10 of the learned CIT (A) order. The impugned chart clearly reflects the fact that the assessee has commenced its commercial production long back. Therefore, we disagree with the contention of the assessee that it started its commercial production effective from the assessment year 1999- 2,000. 15.1 Now coming

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI RAJKOT DISTT. CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Us.

Section 2 of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956) and shall include share of a company in which public are not substantially interested; 2(2) Words and expressions used and not defined in this part of Income Computation and Disclosure Standard but defined in the Act shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them