KONARK OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in\nabove terms

Section 271(1)(c) for excess depreciation and interest was deemed not justified.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "143(3)", "263" ], "issues

SHRI KANJIBHAI B. RANGANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation on increased cost of plant and machinery, qua which foreign currency fluctuation loss had been incurred, since once error was pointed out assessee made a course correction before assessment order was passed, in said circumstances, Assessing Officer could not impose penalty upon assessee under Section 271(1)(c

M/S. SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

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

depreciation of Rs.63,75,068/- claimed u/s 32AC of the Act on electrification of Plant & Machinery worth Rs.4,25,00,454/- must be treated as unexplained expenses u/s 68 and added back to the assessee's total income. Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) is initiated on these amounts for concealment of income.\nAssessed at Rs. 18,38,69,580/- under

GIRISH LAHORI,GANDHIDHAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

depreciation\nNA\n10\nWhether the provisions of Sec. 150 (1) are applicable If the No\nreply is in the affirmative, the relevant facts may be stated\nagainst item No. 11 aod it may also be brought out that the\nProvisions of Section 150(2) would not stand in\nthe way of initiating proceeding AIPPD9181N u/s 147\n11\nReasons

SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO OP PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 429/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Surendranagar District Co. Op. Acit, Circle, Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Surendranagar-363035 Plot No.249, Phase 2 Gidc Market Yard Circle, Sursagar Dairy, Wadhwan Road, Surendranagar-363035 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : Heard On 09/10/2025, Refixed For Clarification On 03.11.2025 & Finally Heard On 02.02.2026 : 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the interest charged u/s 234A/B/C of the I. T. Act, 1961. 8. That, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law.” 3. First, we shall take ground No. 1 and 2, above, raised by the assessee

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)

271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Your applicant reserves the right in addition or alteration in the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” Ground number 1: disallowance of interest expense of " 2,36 855/- 3. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that assessee had given