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 6

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

43,60,22,158/- for A.Y. 1997-98, which was not eligible for being carried forward and set off against the income for the A. Y. 2006-07. 31. Prior to the Finance Act No. 2 of 1996 the unabsorbed depreciation for any year was allowed to be carry forward indefinitely and by a. deeming fiction became allowance

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

6 of 10 Ashvin D Jadav furnished by M/s. Angel Broking Private Limited. Copy of bank statement is submitted before the Bench.In this regard, at the outset it is submitted that the assessing officer while passing the assessment order treated the income of Rs. 41,64,500/- as undisclosed income however did not allow the set off of losses incurred

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

43 wherein it was held that when deduction under Section 35(2)(iv) of the Act was allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research no depreciation has to be allowed under Section 32 on the same asset. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation of Rs.55,32,155/-and assessed the income

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

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

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

THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S SRV METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

43,72,643/- u/s. 10B of the I T Act. The Id. CIT(A) ought' to have appreciated that the addition was made as the assessee had not produced books of accounts and other documents for verification. 10. The Id. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the factual and legal matrix in not allowing

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

6 crores only. Furthermore, it was also explained that none of the partner was taking active participation in the affairs of eligible unit. Moreover, there was no loss to the revenue for the reason that the amount of remuneration received by the partners is taxable in their hands subject to the provisions of section

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

6 crores only. Furthermore, it was also explained that none of the partner was taking active participation in the affairs of eligible unit. Moreover, there was no loss to the revenue for the reason that the amount of remuneration received by the partners is taxable in their hands subject to the provisions of 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

6. The Ld. AR submitted that during the year company has settled disputes for claims for rate difference by the Jute Bags Supplier. Civil Suits were filed for damages and compensation for unilateral termination/cancellation of contract. Payment is compensatory in nature and thus the same is not covered by the explanation to Section

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

6. The Ld. AR submitted that during the year company has settled disputes for claims for rate difference by the Jute Bags Supplier. Civil Suits were filed for damages and compensation for unilateral termination/cancellation of contract. Payment is compensatory in nature and thus the same is not covered by the explanation to Section

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.

6 of 14 Asstt. Year 2012-13 by various decisions of different High Courts including this court which has already been referred to above. (2) In the instant case, the assessee-company being NBFC is governed by the provisions of RBI Act. In such a case, interest income cannot be said to have accrued to the assessee having regard

BACKBONE ENTERPRISE LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

6 kg. grade) of varying diameter from 160 to 800 dia in a length of about 8 kms. The conveyance pipe line is technically planned and designed with 2 nos. of lifting station at different location, as shown in the drawings with the documents provision is also made in developing the road by cost effective, efficient road lighting

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

6 kg. grade) of varying diameter from 160 to 800 dia in a length of about 8 kms. The conveyance pipe line is technically planned and designed with 2 nos. of lifting station at different location, as shown in the drawings with the documents provision is also made in developing the road by cost effective, efficient road lighting

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

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