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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

37. Investments written off: During the year under review, in order to streamline the shareholding for better and more efficient management of the company and as a part of reorganisation and to simplify holding structure, the following Companies in which the Company has made investments, have carried out capital reduction duly approved by the High Cut Bombay. Pursuant

AMRELI JILLA MADHYASTH SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,AMRELI vs. THE DCIT-ACIT-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.548/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Sahakari The Dcit/Acit-2(1) बनाम Bank Ltd. Rajkot. Bhojalram Bhavan Vs. Rajmahel Road Amreli 365 601. Pan : Aaata 2737 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M.Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

depreciation i.e. (a) Rs.32,22,897/- and 10% average advances of nRs.3,92,33,51,000/- i.e. (b)_ Rs.39,23,35,100/-, total (a) plus (b) Rs.39,55,57,997/- or (ii) Rs.NIL being provision debited to profit & loss account plus Rs.57,00,750/- being 15% of profit & loss appropriation amount of Rs.3

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,, 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

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)

depreciation on investment, however, the nature of deduction is notional in nature and not allowable as an expense as per the provision of the Act. Accordingly, the same should have been disallowed u/s 37(1) of Income Tax Act, and to be added to the total income of the assessee- bank, by the assessing officer, while finalizing the assessment

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.

depreciation on assets is "assets used for the purpose of business", in Sec. 36(1)(iii) which allows interest on capital, the words used are "borrowed for the purpose of business', the words used in Section 37

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 बनाम Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Income Tax Vs. Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 Circle-1(1), Rajkot Pan : Aadcg6113A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025

depreciation of Rs. 19,15,32,208/-, as per I.T. Act. Further, the company has increased its profit by Rs. 1,87,86,147/- (Rs. 21,03,18,355/- less Rs. 19,15,32,208/-) in income tax return (ITR). In support of this, the assessee has submitted before the assessing officer the copy of computation of income for assessment

THE ITO, WARD 1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S PAVAN CONSTRUCTION CO, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

37(1) of the Act. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: “8. I find merit in the submission of the appellant. (If any amount is paid for breach of law, the same can be disallowed, but payment made for late completion of work

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

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity at Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing and Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to eligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market price. The ld.Counsel, in this regard submitted that the issue involved in assessee appeal

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

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity at Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing and Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to eligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market price. The ld.Counsel, in this regard submitted that the issue involved in assessee appeal

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.

1% of gross value. This was the result of time gap between the recording of entries and explanation sought. Some of the employees’ who have noted these entries must have left the job also. Thus, we find that the ld.CIT(A) has rightly appreciated controversy and rightly deleted the additions. We do not find any merit in the grounds

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

1) in terms of provision of section 68 of the Act in respect of equity share capital of Rs.18.50 Crores (2) claim of depreciation of Rs.6.25 crores on plant and machinery installed during the year under consideration and (3) deduction claimed on account of investment allowance u/s.32AC of the Act of Rs.5.11 crores and thereby setting aside the order passed

THE ACIT, CIRCLE MORBI, MORBI vs. M/S. VITA GRANITO PVT. LTD., MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2008-09 Acit, Morbi Circle Vs. M/S.Vita Granito P.Ltd. Morbi. B/H. Dariyalal Resort Village-Jambudiya Morbi. Pan : Aaccv 4765 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Rajkot [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 14.3.2019 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2008-09. 2. This Is A Recalled Matter. The Appeal Of The Revenue Was Earlier Dismissed On Account Of Low Tax Effect. However, Subsequently, The Department Filed An Ma Pleading That The Appeal Of The Revenue Could Not Be Dismissed On Account Of Low Tax Effect, Because, It Fell Within The Exceptions Provided In Para-8(C) Of The Board’S Instruction Directing Withdrawal Of Appeals On Account Of 2

section 37(1) of the Act had been disallowed treating the same as capital expenditure, holding the assessee as being entitled to depreciation

SHRI KANJIBHAI B. RANGANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

37,55,020/-. The then CIT (A)-IV, Rajkot vide order dtd. 13-09-2012 has confirmed the addition of Rs. 36,34,125/- on account of capita! gain on sale of plot of land. However, he allowed deduction of Rs. 19,30,320/- in the short term capital gain as cost of improvement being amount of premium paid

SHREE DIGVIJAY CEMENT CO. LTD.,,SIKKA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.184/Rjt/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) बनाम/ Shree Digvijay Cement Co. A.C.I.T, Ltd., Circle-2, Vs. Digvijaygram Sikka, Jamnagar. Jamnagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs0957J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Cit.D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 19/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Jamnagar [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 29/03/2011, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 21/12/2009 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2007-08. A.Y. 2007-08 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 37(1) of the Act for the liability pertaining to the year 2003-04 on account of the royalty but paid/ crystallized in the year under consideration to the Department of Geology and Mining. Admittedly, the demand was raised by the Department of Geology and Mining of Gujarat upon the assessee vide letter dated 13-11-2006 which

THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

37 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise Ltd. corresponding bills and if not paid by the Contractor within the said period, the Co-Developer may then deduct the amount from any moneys due i.e. Security Deposit or becoming due to the Contractor under the Contract or may be recovered by actions of law or otherwise