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

depreciation in respect of building, plant and machinery owned by the assessee and used for business purposes. It further provides for deduction subject to section 34

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

section 68 of the Act. 5. The Ld. PCIT also found that assessee during the year shown has shown addition to fixed assets for Rs. 39,90,99,107 on which, it claimed depreciation of Rs. 6,25,34

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 143(3) r.w.s. 260 of the Income Tax Act 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. 2.Grievances raised by the Revenue, are as follows. Gandhi Reality(I) Pvt. Ltd 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,18,52,087/-, on account of depreciation claim on goodwill

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)

34) on the dividend income received by the assessee. However only for the present A.Y. 2013-14, the Ld. A.O. levied penalty, which is inconsistent with that of the earlier assessment years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. has held the words "inaccurate particulars" mean that the details supplied

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

Section 32 on the same asset. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation of Rs.55,32,155/-and assessed the income at Rs.(-) 4,34

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.376/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Circle-3(1), Vs. Gopalnaga, Opp. Andh Mahila Rajkot. Vikas Gruh, Rajkot.

34) of the Act. Likewise the assessee has made the disallowance of Rs. 6,08,247/- equivalent to the amount of exempted income under the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D of Income Tax Rule. 20.1 However, the AO being dissatisfied with the working of the disallowance made by the assessee, computed the disallowance under section 14A read

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.

34) of the Act. The ld.AO in a brief finding observed that the expenditure attributable to earning of this exempt income deserves to be disallowed under section 14A of the Act r.w.s Rule 8D of IT Rules. He worked out a sum of Rs.83,352/- for disallowance. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed disallowance. 20. Before us, the ld.counsel

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

34,85,042/-." 3.1 Finally the assessment was framed under section 143(3) section 147 of the Act at the income declared by the assessee in the return of income at Rs. 22,17,280/- vide order dated 30 of December 2019. 3.2 Subsequently, the proceedings under section 263 of the Act was initiated vide notice dated 11 December

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

34. The Ld. Counsel also submitted about assessee's appeal that restricting disallowance of deduction under section 80-IC of Rs.1,18,45,693/-, on protective basis, on the alleged ground of inflated profit of Rudrapur unit, being sale by Rajkot unit, in respect of item code 235F and 236F to Rudrapur unit-1, is bad in law. The sale

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

34. The Ld. Counsel also submitted about assessee's appeal that restricting disallowance of deduction under section 80-IC of Rs.1,18,45,693/-, on protective basis, on the alleged ground of inflated profit of Rudrapur unit, being sale by Rajkot unit, in respect of item code 235F and 236F to Rudrapur unit-1, is bad in law. The sale

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

34. The Ld. Counsel also submitted about assessee's appeal that restricting disallowance of deduction under section 80-IC of Rs.1,18,45,693/-, on protective basis, on the alleged ground of inflated profit of Rudrapur unit, being sale by Rajkot unit, in respect of item code 235F and 236F to Rudrapur unit-1, is bad in law. The sale

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

34. The Ld. Counsel also submitted about assessee's appeal that restricting disallowance of deduction under section 80-IC of Rs.1,18,45,693/-, on protective basis, on the alleged ground of inflated profit of Rudrapur unit, being sale by Rajkot unit, in respect of item code 235F and 236F to Rudrapur unit-1, is bad in law. The sale

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

34. The Ld. Counsel also submitted about assessee's appeal that restricting disallowance of deduction under section 80-IC of Rs.1,18,45,693/-, on protective basis, on the alleged ground of inflated profit of Rudrapur unit, being sale by Rajkot unit, in respect of item code 235F and 236F to Rudrapur unit-1, is bad in law. The sale

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

34. The Ld. Counsel also submitted about assessee's appeal that restricting disallowance of deduction under section 80-IC of Rs.1,18,45,693/-, on protective basis, on the alleged ground of inflated profit of Rudrapur unit, being sale by Rajkot unit, in respect of item code 235F and 236F to Rudrapur unit-1, is bad in law. The sale

ASHVIN DINESHBHAI JADAV,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

depreciation on fixed assets against deemed income under section 68-Held, yes [Para 14] [In favour of assessee)” (iii) Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench 'A' in the case of ACE Infracity Developers (P.) Ltd. V DCIT held as under: Page 8 of 10 Ashvin D Jadav “7.… It also further mentions that the pre-amended provision of section 115BBE

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

Depreciation claim on Plant & Machinery amounting to Rs.33,85,988/-, disallowance of expenditure incurred as Entertainment of Expenses amounting to Rs.72,054/-, disallowance of Contribution of PWD Road of Rs.52,34,500/-, disallowance out of Licence/Registration Fees amounting to Rs.11,34,064/-, disallowance under Section

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

Depreciation claim on Plant & Machinery amounting to Rs.33,85,988/-, disallowance of expenditure incurred as Entertainment of Expenses amounting to Rs.72,054/-, disallowance of Contribution of PWD Road of Rs.52,34,500/-, disallowance out of Licence/Registration Fees amounting to Rs.11,34,064/-, disallowance under Section

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MORBI vs. M/S. KISHAN PLUS MINARALS, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue (In ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.02/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Cent.Cir.2 M/S.Kishan Plus Minerals बनाम Rajkot. Jetpar Road, Nr. Pavadiyali Temple, Jasmatgadh Vs. Morbi. Pan : Aaqfk4689P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Counsel राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2025 (Originally Heard Refixed On 05.06.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini:

depreciation, to the extent to the profit earned in current year. The assessee has earned income from manufacturing and trading of Body Clay, which is the basic raw-material for manufacturing of vitrified tiles. A search was conducted on the group cases of “Coral Group of Morbi” which was commenced on 03.01.2019 and was finally concluded

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION CO,TALALA, JUNAGADH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

In the result, ground no.2(e ) raised by the assessee, is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.608/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Krishna Construction Co. The Dcit, Cir.1(1) बनाम Below Dr.Antalas Hospital Rajkot. Station Road, Talala (Gir) Vs. Junagadh. Pan : Aaifk 8897 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R.D. Lalchandani, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini:

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The disallowance is not justified, [e] The disallowance of Rs. 69,40,248/- being 20% on ad hoc basis out of direct expenses. The disallowance is not justified.” 3. The first grievance of the assessee, is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the assessing officer