THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S P.C. PATEL & COMPANY,, BHUJ

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

30% on dumpers as against depreciation @15% allowed by the AO. B. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law to appreciate that if the vehicle/dumpers were given on hire, then the assessee must have earned income from hiring out of the these equipment. C. In the alternative and without prejudice to above, the Id.CIT(A) has also

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S P.C. PATEL & CO.,, BHUJ

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2014- 15. I.T.A No. 194/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2 ACIT Vs. M/s. P C Patel & Co. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Partnership Firm engaged in the business of Earth

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

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 in the Smifs case. In this case hon’ble delhi high court has held

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

30%. The Ld. AR of the assessee prayed for deletion\nof penalty, since the assessee has not committed the default in to disclosing the\nincome.\n7. On the contrary, Ld. DR has relied on the order of the Ld. lower Authority.\nAnd further submitted that the assessee has not disclosed interest of Rs. 7,821/-\nand excess depreciation charge

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

depreciation @ 30% on motor lorries as the assessee is not engaged in the business of hiring of vehicles and therefore, the AO issued notice ACIT vs. M/s. Ravji Manji Sorathia & Co. Asst.Year –2011-12 under Section

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

30 to 43D of the Act. iii. Section 36(1)(viii) of the I.T. Act specified entities engaged in the Eligible Business to claim a deduction of 20% of the profit by creating reserves in books of Account of the assessee. That the requirement of the claim of deduction under the Act are as under; i. Taxpayer must be working

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

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

depreciation for\nfirst 6 months. Besides, the process of manufacturing explained by the assessee\nis very long which would take at least 5 months after 30-09-2016, hence cash\nsale made by assessee during demonetization period is bogus. Besides, income\ntax expense was not examined by AO, at all.\n23. We note that in appeal effect proceedings under section

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.

Sections 30, 31 and 32 of the KT. Act, which allow rent/rates/insurance, repairs & depreciation on assets is "assets used for the purpose

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

30 of December 2019. 3.2 Subsequently, the proceedings under section 263 of the Act was initiated vide notice dated 11 December 2021 alleging that the assessee has declared long-term capital gain at ₹ 95,22,429/- which was claimed as exempted under section 10(38) of the Act. As per the learned PCIT, such long-term capital gain was bogus

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, JAMNAGAR vs. SHRI MILANKUMAR M. POBARU,, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be applied to disallow the amount of such freight amounting to Rs.2,01,81,428/-. Following the aforesaid discussion, we set-aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition. The assessee accordingly, succeeds on this Ground.” 33. It was further

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

30,47,414\n9,83,31,838\nOverall Depreciation Chart of Rudrapur Unit:\nNo\nParticulars\nFY 08-09\nFY 09-10\n1\nWDV\n4,14,64,138\n7,85,31,109\n2\nAddition to fixed asset\n5,49,29,277\n3,49,65,836\n3\nTotal\n9,64,13,416\n11,34,96,945\n4\nDepreciation claimed

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.

30,06,181/- was not included in the gross total income and therefore it was not eligible for the deduction in respect of such income. But the same was allowed by the AO during the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act without carrying out necessary verification. iv. There were fresh loans shown by the assessee from

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

depreciation on motor car of Rs. 11,97,617/-, it is clarified that all the cars are\nused at Rajkot unit only. In Rudrapur unit 1, depreciation on motor care of 1,54,016/-\n(1,04,546 + 49,470) and those cars at Rudrapar unit 1 only. As all motor car depreciation\nexpenses of respective units borne by, itself

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

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

30,47,414\nWDV\n7,85,31,109\n9,83,31,838\nOverall Depreciation Chart of Rudrapur Unit:\nNo Particulars\nFY 08-09\nFY 09-10\n1\nWDV\n4,14,64,138\n7,85,31,109\n2\nAddition to fixed asset\n5,49,29,277\n3,49,65,836\n3\nTotal

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

30,47,414\nWDV\n7,85,31,109\n9,83,31,838\nOverall Depreciation Chart of Rudrapur Unit:\nNo Particulars\nFY 08-09\nFY 09-10\n1\nWDV\n4,14,64,138\n7,85,31,109\n2\nAddition to fixed asset\n5,49,29,277\n3,49,65,836\n3\nTotal

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

30,47,414\nWDV\n7,85,31,109\n9,83,31,838\nOverall Depreciation Chart of Rudrapur Unit:\nNo Particulars\nFY 08-09\nFY 09-10\n1\nWDV\n4,14,64,138\n7,85,31,109\n2\nAddition to fixed asset\n5,49,29,277\n3,49,65,836\n3\nTotal