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

36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The accounting standards applicable in income tax proceedings in India are either: a. Those issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), which operates under a distinct parliamentary statute, i.e.,The Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, or b. Those notified under Section 145(2) of the Income

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)

36(1) (viia) and investment depreciation reserve as mentioned above inspite of the fact that the assessee totally failed to submit the details required by him vide notice u/s 142(1) of I.T. Act. The ld.PCIT also observed that during the course of present proceedings, under 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 of business", in Sec. 36(1

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

36(1)(iii)", "Section 43(1)", "Section 270A", "Section 270A(10b)", "Section 80JJA", "Section 68", "Section 115BBE", "Section 142(1)", "Section 32"], "issues": "Whether the assessment order dated 30.09.2019 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, warranting revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning issues of depreciation

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)

36(1)(iii) of Rs.3,16,82,477/- though the assessee had made interest free advances out of interest bearing funds. This is ground No.3 of revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 233/RJT/2016 for assessment year 2009–10. Similar and identical grounds in other appeals of the revenue are as follows: (a)Ground No.3 in 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)

36(1)(iii) of Rs.3,16,82,477/- though the assessee had made interest free advances out of interest bearing funds. This is ground No.3 of revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 233/RJT/2016 for assessment year 2009–10. Similar and identical grounds in other appeals of the revenue are as follows: (a)Ground No.3 in 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)

36(1)(iii) of Rs.3,16,82,477/- though the assessee had made interest free advances out of interest bearing funds. This is ground No.3 of revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 233/RJT/2016 for assessment year 2009–10. Similar and identical grounds in other appeals of the revenue are as follows: (a)Ground No.3 in 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)

36(1)(iii) of Rs.3,16,82,477/- though the assessee had made interest free advances out of interest bearing funds. This is ground No.3 of revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 233/RJT/2016 for assessment year 2009–10. Similar and identical grounds in other appeals of the revenue are as follows: (a)Ground No.3 in 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)

36(1)(iii) of Rs.3,16,82,477/- though the assessee had made interest free advances out of interest bearing funds. This is ground No.3 of revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 233/RJT/2016 for assessment year 2009–10. Similar and identical grounds in other appeals of the revenue are as follows: (a)Ground No.3 in revenue`s, appeal

SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

36,85,000 (Thirty Six Lakh Eighty Five Thousand) 6% Non-Cumulative, Non-\nConvertible, Redeemable fully paid up preference shares of Rs.100/- (Rupees Hundred)\neach held by Seabird Marine Services Privat Limited and having an aggregate paid up\nvalue of Rs.36,85,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Crores Eight Five Lakhs); (“Proposed\nCapital Reduction”); and (b) NIL consideration being payable

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

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

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

KONARK OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in\nabove terms

36,533/- on account of interest income and\ndisallowance of Rs. 1,22,429/- on account of claim of depreciation on which the\npenalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.\nOn appeal, the Honorable CIT(A)-3, Rajkot vide appellate order dated\n27.11.2019 partly allowed the appeal of the appellant and restricted the addition

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

1,36,50,985/- as direct Expenses w.r.t. ROW expenses being a contractor whereas Right of way is the right to pass over or through real property owned by someone else and expense included the amount paid to Government authorities or others towards permission to use of land for laying pipelines, along with cost of respective pipelines and the depreciations

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

1,36,50,985/- as direct Expenses w.r.t. ROW expenses being a contractor whereas Right of way is the right to pass over or through real property owned by someone else and expense included the amount paid to Government authorities or others towards permission to use of land for laying pipelines, along with cost of respective pipelines and the depreciations