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

31. We note that Section 230 (5) of the Companies Act requires notice to be given to Central Government and Regulatory Authorities. The Assessee as well as the transferor companies had intimated the income tax authorities and had invited representations in connection with the proposed scheme vide letter dated 5th May 2018. However, no objections in relation to the scheme

THE ACIT, MORBI CIRCLE,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. VISHALDEEP SPINNING MILLA LTD.,, MUMBAI

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

31. Prior to the Finance Act No. 2 of 1996 the unabsorbed depreciation for any year was allowed to be carry forward indefinitely and by a. deeming fiction became allowance of the immediately succeeding year. The Finance Act No. 2 of 1996 restricted the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and set-off to a limit of 8 years, from

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

section 32(l)(iia) the allowable depreciation is 20%. The assessee claimed 10% additional depreciation in first year as machinery was put to use for less than 180 days and balance additional depreciation was claimed in the subsequent year. It is also seen that the issue has been decided by Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad A bench in the case

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

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

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\n9,64,13,416\n11,34,96,945\n4\nDepreciation claimed\n1,78,82,307\n1,51,65,107\n5\nWDV

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

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\n9,64,13,416\n11,34,96,945\n4\nDepreciation claimed\n1,78,82,307\n1,51,65,107\n5\nWDV

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

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\n9,64,13,416\n11,34,96,945\n4\nDepreciation claimed\n1,78,82,307\n1,51,65,107\n5\nWDV

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

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

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\n9,64,13,416\n11,34,96,945\n4\nDepreciation claimed\n1,78,82,307\n1,51,65,107\n5\nWDV

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

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\n9,64,13,416\n11,34,96,945\n4\nDepreciation claimed\n1,78,82,307\n1,51,65,107\n5\nWDV

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

31,000/-, by invoking the provision of section 40A(3) of\nthe Act, being the amount paid in cash by the assessee for buying of petrol and\ndiesel from Vrundavan Petrol Pump, on 13/11/2016, and\n(ii) Disallowance of amortization expenses of Rs.70,71,825/-, claimed, treating\nthe same to be capital expenditure, in view of the provision of 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

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

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\n1,78,82,307\n1,51,65,107\n5\nWDV

M/S SHREE RAJMOTI INDS.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE A. C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

31,750/- received by the assessee from Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd.. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.1. On appeal against the quantum addition, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. It is thereafter the Assessing Officer proceeded with the levy of penalty by issuing a show cause notice dated

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

31,054/- 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by restricting the disallowance u/s.14A to Rs.6.66 lakhs as against Rs.88.35 lakhs computed by the AO. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,40,760/- u/s.40(a)(ia). 11. That

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

31,054/- 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by restricting the disallowance u/s.14A to Rs.6.66 lakhs as against Rs.88.35 lakhs computed by the AO. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,40,760/- u/s.40(a)(ia). 11. That

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.:

depreciation, the net income of Rs. 92,40,586/- has been shown. The net business income is claimed as deduction u/s 80P(2)(b) of the Act, in the return filed by the assessee. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the deduction of interest is disallowed and the net interest income of Rs. 34,79,487/- has been treated

SHRI PRAKASH J. BAGDAI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO-WD-16(1)(1), MUMBAI, PRESENT JURISDICTION WITH ITO-WARD-1 (2)(4), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 138/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2007-2008 Prakash J. Bagdai, I.T.O., C/O M.N. Manvar & Co., Vs. Ward-16(1)(1), Chartered Accountant, Mumbai. 504-Star Plaza, (Present Jurisdiction With Phulchhab Chowk, I.T.O, Rajkot. Ward-1(2)(4), Rajkot.)

depreciation is claimed. " 5. The Ld. C1T(A) - 1, Rajkot dismissed the request for additional evidences under Rule 46A of IT. Rules, 1962 on alleged finding that none of the conditions under Rule 46A is satisfied and dismissed the appeal. 3. At the outset, we note that there was a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee

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

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.

section 142(1) of the Act dated 31-01-2014 2. Please furnish N.P./turnover and GP/turnover ratio for the AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 with reason for decline. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 7. Please furnish complete postal addresses and confirmation of new unsecured loan. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 9. Books of accounts alongwith stock registers. Reply dated 15-02-2014: 2. Gross