THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S H.D. ENTERPRISE,, BHUJ

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysr. Asstt. Name Of Name Of Ita No. No. Year Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. H.D. Income-Tax, Enterprise, 1St Floor, Pooja 1. 110/Rjt/2016 2011-12 Gandhidham Circle, Complex, Station Gandhidham- Road, Bhuj-Kutch Kutch Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2. 205/Rjt/2016 2012-13 Gandhidham -Do- Circle, Gandhidham- Kutch 3. 237/Rjt/2016 2013-14 -Do- -Do- (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. N. Maurya, Cit Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 25/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 11.01.2016, 03.03.2016 & 25.04.2016 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Rajkot Arising Out Of The Orders All Dated 24.03.2014 Passed By The Ita Nos.110,205&237/Rjt/2016 A.Y.2011-12,2012-13&2013-14 Assessing Officer, Gandhidham Under Sections 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since All The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & The Issues Are Identical, These Are Heard Analogously & Are Being Disposed By A Common Order.

sections 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the act”) for A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 respectively. Since all the appeals relate to the same assessee, and the issues are identical, these are heard analogously and are being disposed by a common order. ITA No. 110/Rjt/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 is taken

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S H.D. ENTERPRISE,, BHUJ

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysr. Asstt. Name Of Name Of Ita No. No. Year Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. H.D. Income-Tax, Enterprise, 1St Floor, Pooja 1. 110/Rjt/2016 2011-12 Gandhidham Circle, Complex, Station Gandhidham- Road, Bhuj-Kutch Kutch Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2. 205/Rjt/2016 2012-13 Gandhidham -Do- Circle, Gandhidham- Kutch 3. 237/Rjt/2016 2013-14 -Do- -Do- (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. N. Maurya, Cit Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 25/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 11.01.2016, 03.03.2016 & 25.04.2016 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Rajkot Arising Out Of The Orders All Dated 24.03.2014 Passed By The Ita Nos.110,205&237/Rjt/2016 A.Y.2011-12,2012-13&2013-14 Assessing Officer, Gandhidham Under Sections 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since All The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & The Issues Are Identical, These Are Heard Analogously & Are Being Disposed By A Common Order.

sections 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the act”) for A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 respectively. Since all the appeals relate to the same assessee, and the issues are identical, these are heard analogously and are being disposed by a common order. ITA No. 110/Rjt/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 is taken

DR. SUBHASH PETHALJI CHAVDA AHIR KELVANI MANDAL,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-2,, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

30 to section 43C. That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of building, plant and machinery

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

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. RISHI KIRAN LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE JOINT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX,, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

30,94,549/- by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act on the alleged ground that appellant failed to prove one-to-one nexus from bank account that investment has been done entirely from its own funds. (vi) Alleged that assessee (i) paid excessive terminal handling charges to Shreeji Power and Insulators Pvt. Ltd. [SPIPL] and (ii) paid

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S RISHI KIRAN LOGISTICS P. LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

30,94,549/- by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act on the alleged ground that appellant failed to prove one-to-one nexus from bank account that investment has been done entirely from its own funds. (vi) Alleged that assessee (i) paid excessive terminal handling charges to Shreeji Power and Insulators Pvt. Ltd. [SPIPL] and (ii) paid

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

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

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.

Section 24 of the Banking Regulation Act provides for maintenance of a percentage of assets and accordingly each bank has to invest in securities and to maintain such percentage. 5.6 Bank is not at all engaged in purchase and sale of securities and that bank had invested money in Government securities only for the purpose of complying with the provisions

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 9,83,31,838 Overall Depreciation Chart of Rudrapur Unit: No Particulars FY 08-09 FY 09-10 1 WDV 4,14,64,138 7,85,31,109 2 Addition to fixed asset 5,49,29,277 3,49,65,836 3 Total 9,64,13,416 11,34,96,945 4 Depreciation 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