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

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

32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and is eligible for depreciation. The assessee argued that the provisions of Section 49 of the Act Gandhi Reality(I) Pvt. Ltd apply, pointing out the definition of "cost of acquisition" in Section 55(2

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

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of additional depreciation in the current year where as the plant and machinery was required and installed in ACIT vs. M/s. Jaxx Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2013-14 the previous year, contrary to the provisions of Section 32

THE ASST. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S RAVI TECHNOFORGE PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Acit, Cir.1 Vs. M/S.Ravi Techno Forge P. Ltd. Rajkot. Plot No.7/8, Survey No.211 Veraval Shapar Ind. Area Rajkot Gondal Highway, Tal. Kotdasangani Dist. Rajkot. Pan : Aadcs 1608 N 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/06/2023

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short] for the Asst.Year2014-15. 2. The grounds raised in the appeal are as under: “1. The learned CIT(A)-2, Rajkot has erred in law and on facts in deleting the additions made on account of disallowance of additional depreciation u/s 32

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

2½% and they also claimed depreciation on furniture @ 5%. The question which arose before the Court for determination was : whether depreciation could be denied to the assessee, as expenditure on acquisition of the assets had been treated as application of income in the year of acquisition? It was held by the Bombay High Court that section 11 of the Income

THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. TARABEN VRUJLAL MEHTA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION TRUST,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

2)(iv) of the Act was allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research no depreciation has to be allowed under Section 32

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation of land cost of windmill to the extent of Rs.4,05,600/- and allowing the said amount as rent on monthly basis. [ This is ground No.3 of cross objection No. 23, Ground No.3 of cross objection No.24, Ground No.2 of cross objection No. 25, Ground No.2 of cross objection No. 26] 5. Now, we shall take above, Revenue

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation of land cost of windmill to the extent of Rs.4,05,600/- and allowing the said amount as rent on monthly basis. [ This is ground No.3 of cross objection No. 23, Ground No.3 of cross objection No.24, Ground No.2 of cross objection No. 25, Ground No.2 of cross objection No. 26] 5. Now, we shall take above, Revenue

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation of land cost of windmill to the extent of Rs.4,05,600/- and allowing the said amount as rent on monthly basis. [ This is ground No.3 of cross objection No. 23, Ground No.3 of cross objection No.24, Ground No.2 of cross objection No. 25, Ground No.2 of cross objection No. 26] 5. Now, we shall take above, Revenue

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation of land cost of windmill to the extent of Rs.4,05,600/- and allowing the said amount as rent on monthly basis. [ This is ground No.3 of cross objection No. 23, Ground No.3 of cross objection No.24, Ground No.2 of cross objection No. 25, Ground No.2 of cross objection No. 26] 5. Now, we shall take above, Revenue

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation of land cost of windmill to the extent of Rs.4,05,600/- and allowing the said amount as rent on monthly basis. [ This is ground No.3 of cross objection No. 23, Ground No.3 of cross objection No.24, Ground No.2 of cross objection No. 25, Ground No.2 of cross objection No. 26] 5. Now, we shall take above, Revenue

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

sections 147r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by\nthis consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the\nfacts narrated

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

sections 147r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by\nthis consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the\nfacts narrated

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

2(a) of\nsection 263 of the Act, the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer\nu/s 143(3) dated 30.09.2019 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the\ninterest of revenue on the issue of wrong claim of depreciation and cash\namount deposited in Bank account during demonetization period and\nimpugned assessment order is required

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

sections 147r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by\nthis consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the\nfacts narrated

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT., RAJKOT

sections 147r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by\nthis consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the\nfacts narrated

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

sections 147r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by\nthis consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the\nfacts narrated

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

sections 147r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by\nthis consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the\nfacts narrated