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,, 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

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

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

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

depreciation.\n[This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19]\n4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of\nassessee and revenue, as follows.\n5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready\nreference.\n“1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that proceedings u/s 148 culminating\ninto order

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

depreciation.\n[This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19]\n4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of\nassessee and revenue, as follows.\n5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready\nreference.\n“1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that proceedings u/s 148 culminating\ninto order

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

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

depreciation.\n[This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19]\n4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of\nassessee and revenue, as follows.\n5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready\nreference.\n“1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that proceedings u/s 148 culminating\ninto order

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

depreciation.\n[This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19]\n4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of\nassessee and revenue, as follows.\n5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready\nreference.\n\"1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that proceedings u/s 148 culminating\ninto order

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

depreciation.\n[This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19]\n4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of\nassessee and revenue, as follows.\n5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready\nreference.\n“1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that proceedings u/s 148 culminating\ninto order

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

depreciation.\n[This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19]\n4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of\nassessee and revenue, as follows.\n5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready\nreference.\n“1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that proceedings u/s 148 culminating\ninto order

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

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