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

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

depreciation would start from A.Y. 1997- 98.........'..................... 35. Section 32(2) of the Act was amended by Finance Act, 2001 and the provision

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)

35,013/-. [This is ground No.3 of revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 235/RJT/ 2016, for assessment year 2011– 12]. (v) Ground No.5. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of iron-ore expenses of Rs.55,89,166/- [ This is ground No.4 of Revenue`s appeal

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)

35,013/-. [This is ground No.3 of revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 235/RJT/ 2016, for assessment year 2011– 12]. (v) Ground No.5. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of iron-ore expenses of Rs.55,89,166/- [ This is ground No.4 of Revenue`s appeal

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)

35,013/-. [This is ground No.3 of revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 235/RJT/ 2016, for assessment year 2011– 12]. (v) Ground No.5. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of iron-ore expenses of Rs.55,89,166/- [ This is ground No.4 of Revenue`s appeal

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)

35,013/-. [This is ground No.3 of revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 235/RJT/ 2016, for assessment year 2011– 12]. (v) Ground No.5. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of iron-ore expenses of Rs.55,89,166/- [ This is ground No.4 of Revenue`s appeal

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)

35,013/-. [This is ground No.3 of revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 235/RJT/ 2016, for assessment year 2011– 12]. (v) Ground No.5. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of iron-ore expenses of Rs.55,89,166/- [ This is ground No.4 of Revenue`s appeal

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

35(2)(iv) was allowed in respect of capital expenditure on Scientific Research, no depreciation has to be allowed u/s. 32 on the asset. For the said reason the amount so claimed as depreciation to the tune of Rs.32,70,994/- is added back to the income of the trust. In view of the above, it is seen that there

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

Depreciation Related to Mfg. 67 68 087 77 55 982 1 73 60 002 1 93 45 151 (Increase )/Decrease in stock Opening stock By product 1 28 206 2 86 589 Work in process 5 86 46 481 6 63 78 651 Finished goods 1 11 79 254 77 63 967 Total

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 35(2)(iv) of the Act was allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research no depreciation has to be allowed

SHRI DIPTEN AHINDRA BHOWMICK,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

35 of the paper book-I. Before going into the fact of the case on hand, we note that the CBDT in instruction No.20/2015 dated 29/12/2015 has laid down that the Assessing Officer in case of “Limited Scrutiny” can only examine those issues for which the case has been selected or the issue mentioned therein. If the AO notice that

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.

35,36,000/- and ₹ 17,28,949/- respectively but the AO has not verified the identity and creditworthiness of the parties as well as genuineness of the transaction. The learned PCIT in his order clearly admitted that the A.Y. 2011-12 3 necessary documents were furnished by the assessee in support of the above defects but the AO has failed

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.

depreciation, if any, is required to be provided for in the accounts. The latest guidelines of the RBI may be referred to for allowing any such claims. 7. The instructions clearly provide for amortisation of premium paid on acquisition of securities when the same are acquired at the rate higher than the face value. Such amortisation would have

SHRI JAYANTILAL P. SATIKUNVER,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.469/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11)

35,145.00 as per the rate of the gold according to its purity. However, the learned CIT was of the view that gold ornaments of different purity can be valued in the manner as detailed below: (i) Cost of the metal (i.e., gold, platinum, silver etc) including the soldering metal. (ii) Cost of the precious and semi-precious stones (diamonds

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

2 lakhs was appeared against the name of Shri Suryakant Maganlal. But this amount was carried from balance of earlier years. As observed by us, section 68 of the Act contemplates where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof

SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK MANAGER (F & A), RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

2 “Reserves and Surplus” under the Head “Revenue and other Reserves”. 3.2 Market Value (A) Quoted Securities The 'market value' for the purpose of periodical valuation of investments included in the Available for Sale and the Held for Trading categories would be the market price of the scrip as available from the trades/quotes on the stock exchanges, SGL account transactions

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

2,62,50,000) 3,75,00,000 5.1.6 Allowable deduction being lower of 5.1.4 or 5.1.5 3,75,00,000 9. That the Ld. AR of the assessee has drawn out attention to following judgement: (a) DCIT vs GNFC Ltd. (2014) 42 taxmann.com 438 (Gujarat); “Where assessee's claim for preliminary expenses had been allowed in earlier years

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

35. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that assessee- firm has started

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

35. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that assessee- firm has started