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

48 crores interest expenditure. A profit margin of THE ACIT CIR.1(1) RAJKOT 47%. How can the profit margin vary from 23% to 47% unless the allocation of interest expenditure under long term and short term is made incorrectly. (b) The assessee has somewhat arbitrarily allocated the expenses, not based on proportion but on some assumed weightage. In terms

OM LAMCOAT PVT LTD,MORBI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 286 & 287/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) बनाम M/S. Om Lamcoat Pvt. Ltd. The Acit, 8-A, Kandla National Highway, Vs. Central Circle -1, Opp. Dadashri Nagar, At. Morbi – Aayakar Bhavan, Amruta 363642 Estate, M. G. Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan No. : Aabco8163G (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/09/2025

depreciation as per the provisions of the Companies Act. Thus, the issue of scrutiny of P&L account prepared by the Company is still wide open. Therefore, the assessee's claim regarding not altering the book profit by the amount of gross profit estimated on the unaccounted transactions was not considered by the assessing officer. 9. The assessee also argued

OM LAMCOAT PVT LTD,MORBI vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 286 & 287/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) बनाम M/S. Om Lamcoat Pvt. Ltd. The Acit, 8-A, Kandla National Highway, Vs. Central Circle -1, Opp. Dadashri Nagar, At. Morbi – Aayakar Bhavan, Amruta 363642 Estate, M. G. Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan No. : Aabco8163G (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/09/2025

depreciation as per the provisions of the Companies Act. Thus, the issue of scrutiny of P&L account prepared by the Company is still wide open. Therefore, the assessee's claim regarding not altering the book profit by the amount of gross profit estimated on the unaccounted transactions was not considered by the assessing officer. 9. The assessee also argued

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

depreciation claim on electricity line. 38. The Ld. AR submitted that though the legal ownership of electricity line belongs to PGVCL, capital cost of such electricity line has been incurred by the assessee Company and it is exclusively used for the purpose of business of the Company. In alternate, the Ld. AR submitted that the entire cost should be allowed

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

depreciation claim on electricity line. 38. The Ld. AR submitted that though the legal ownership of electricity line belongs to PGVCL, capital cost of such electricity line has been incurred by the assessee Company and it is exclusively used for the purpose of business of the Company. In alternate, the Ld. AR submitted that the entire cost should be allowed

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. CHAMPION AGRO LTD., FORMERLY KNOWN AS MAGNETIC INDS. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 504/Rjt/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 78/Rjt/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010

Depreciation, advertisement expenses, administrative expenses, etc for calculating disallowance as per Rule 8D. Brief Points to be considered by the Hon’ble ITAT, Rajkot Bench, 1. The CIT(Appeals] did not considered the fact that the agreements between the farmers and the assessee company are on plain paper and not on non-judicial stamp paper as also not notarized

THE ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CHAMPION AGRO LTD.,,

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 504/Rjt/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 78/Rjt/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010

Depreciation, advertisement expenses, administrative expenses, etc for calculating disallowance as per Rule 8D. Brief Points to be considered by the Hon’ble ITAT, Rajkot Bench, 1. The CIT(Appeals] did not considered the fact that the agreements between the farmers and the assessee company are on plain paper and not on non-judicial stamp paper as also not notarized

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)

48,905/- per year ( 2978100/20) [ This ground No.3, is raised by the revenue, in ITA No. 366/RJT/2017, for assessment year 2013–14.] (viii) Ground No.8. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the Service Tax relatable to rejection of refund of service tax in the previous year, relevant to the year, under appeal, amounting

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)

48,905/- per year ( 2978100/20) [ This ground No.3, is raised by the revenue, in ITA No. 366/RJT/2017, for assessment year 2013–14.] (viii) Ground No.8. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the Service Tax relatable to rejection of refund of service tax in the previous year, relevant to the year, under appeal, amounting

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)

48,905/- per year ( 2978100/20) [ This ground No.3, is raised by the revenue, in ITA No. 366/RJT/2017, for assessment year 2013–14.] (viii) Ground No.8. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the Service Tax relatable to rejection of refund of service tax in the previous year, relevant to the year, under appeal, amounting

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)

48,905/- per year ( 2978100/20) [ This ground No.3, is raised by the revenue, in ITA No. 366/RJT/2017, for assessment year 2013–14.] (viii) Ground No.8. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the Service Tax relatable to rejection of refund of service tax in the previous year, relevant to the year, under appeal, amounting

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)

48,905/- per year ( 2978100/20) [ This ground No.3, is raised by the revenue, in ITA No. 366/RJT/2017, for assessment year 2013–14.] (viii) Ground No.8. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the Service Tax relatable to rejection of refund of service tax in the previous year, relevant to the year, under appeal, amounting

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

48,10,075\n4\nElectrical fittings\n31,91,778\n34,27,206\nTotal\n9,64,13,416\n13,13,79,252\nCum Dep claimed\n1,78,82,307\n3,30,47,414\nWDV\n7,85,31,109\n9,83,31,838\nOverall Depreciation Chart of Rudrapur Unit:\nNo Particulars\nFY 08-09\nFY 09-10\n1\nWDV

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

48,10,075\n4\nElectrical fittings\n31,91,778\n34,27,206\nTotal\nCum Dep claimed\nWDV\n9,64,13,416\n1,78,82,307\n7,85,31,109\n13,13,79,252\n3,30,47,414\n9,83,31,838\nOverall Depreciation Chart of Rudrapur Unit:\nNo\nParticulars\nFY 08-09\nFY 09-10\n1\nWDV

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

48,436.00 equivalent to 10% of the estimated cost. 4.2 Earnest Money paid by furnishing the initial Security Deposit or adjusted against the Initial Security Deposit at the discretion of the Owner. 4.3 If the successful tenderer fails to commence the work within the prescribed time specified in the Contract the security deposit shall be forfeited to action under clause

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

48,436.00 equivalent to 10% of the estimated cost. 4.2 Earnest Money paid by furnishing the initial Security Deposit or adjusted against the Initial Security Deposit at the discretion of the Owner. 4.3 If the successful tenderer fails to commence the work within the prescribed time specified in the Contract the security deposit shall be forfeited to action under clause

M/S RUDRAKSH DETERGENT & CHEMICAL PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 154 of the Act, which caused delay in filing the appeal. The learned AR in support of his contention also filed the affidavit of the director of the assessee company which is placed on record. Accordingly the learned AR prayed before us for the condonation of the delay. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR considering the reasons

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

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

48,10,075\n4\nElectrical fittings\n31,91,778\n34,27,206\n26\nBhavani Industries India LLP\nITA Nos.247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.)\nTotal\n9,64,13,416\n13,13,79,252\nCum Dep claimed\n1,78,82,307\n3,30,47,414\nWDV\n7,85,31,109\n9,83,31,838\nOverall Depreciation Chart