THE ASST. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S RAVI TECHNOFORGE PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Acit, Cir.1 Vs. M/S.Ravi Techno Forge P. Ltd. Rajkot. Plot No.7/8, Survey No.211 Veraval Shapar Ind. Area Rajkot Gondal Highway, Tal. Kotdasangani Dist. Rajkot. Pan : Aadcs 1608 N 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/06/2023

section 32(1) inter alia provides that the additional depreciation would be restricted to 50% when the new plant or machinery acquired and installed by the assessee, is put to use for the purposes of business or profession for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in the previous year. Non- availability of full 100% of additional

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GANDHI REALITY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

section 143(3) r.w.s. 260 of the Income Tax Act 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. 2.Grievances raised by the Revenue, are as follows. Gandhi Reality(I) Pvt. Ltd 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,18,52,087/-, on account of depreciation claim on goodwill

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

section 32 shall be mandatory. 30.3 Under the existing provisions, no deduction for depreciation is allowed on any motor car manufactured outside India unless it is used (i) in the business of running it on hire for tourists, or (ii) outside in the assessee's business or profession in another country. 30.4 The Act has allowed depreciation allowance

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

section 68 of the Act. 5. The Ld. PCIT also found that assessee during the year shown has shown addition to fixed assets for Rs. 39,90,99,107 on which, it claimed depreciation

THA ACIT, CIRCLE MORBI, MORBI vs. M/S. JAXX VITRIFIED PVT. LTD. , MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 32(1) (iia) the expression used is "shall be allowed". Thus the assessee had earned the benefit as soon as he had purchased the new plant and machinery in full but it is restricted to 50% in that particular year on account of period of usages. Such restrictions cannot divest the statutory right Law does not prohibit that balance

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

5. Indisputably, the provisions of section 115BBE as existed prior to the amendment does not provide that the losses shall not referred to be allowed to be set off against the income section 115BBE and it is only to dispel the uncertainty prevailing on the issue, the provision was amended. A bare perusal of the provisions makes it abundantly clear

RAMESHBHAI DEVRAJBHAI KHICHADIA,RAJKOT vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 51/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-2013

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : 7.2 From the above, it is transpired that it is the AO who can scope expand the scope of the proceedings initiated under section

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

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

depreciation which would be required to be set off\nagainst the profit of the relevant previous year as if the provisions of clause (b) of the first\nproviso to sub-section (1) of section 205 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), are\napplicable.\n(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall affect the determination of the amounts

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 32 on the same asset. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation of Rs.55,32,155/-and assessed the income at Rs.(-) 4,34,17,907/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5

SHRI PRAKASH J. BAGDAI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO-WD-16(1)(1), MUMBAI, PRESENT JURISDICTION WITH ITO-WARD-1 (2)(4), RAJKOT

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 138/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2007-2008 Prakash J. Bagdai, I.T.O., C/O M.N. Manvar & Co., Vs. Ward-16(1)(1), Chartered Accountant, Mumbai. 504-Star Plaza, (Present Jurisdiction With Phulchhab Chowk, I.T.O, Rajkot. Ward-1(2)(4), Rajkot.)

depreciation is claimed. " 5. The Ld. C1T(A) - 1, Rajkot dismissed the request for additional evidences under Rule 46A of IT. Rules, 1962 on alleged finding that none of the conditions under Rule 46A is satisfied and dismissed the appeal. 3. At the outset, we note that there was a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee

SWAMINARAYAN SEVA NIKETAN,,JUNAGADH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-2,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) [Through Virtual Court]

section 11(1)(a), yet depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased - Held, yes [Para 5] [In favour of assessee

APEX IRRIGATION,RAJKOT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a "sufficient cause" for not Apex Irrigation presenting appeal within prescribed time. In the interest of justice, we take a judicious view and we condoned the delay in filing appeal by 461 days 7. Brief facts of the case

ALPHA HI-TECH FUEL LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SNR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.68/Rjt/2009 (धििाधरणणवध/ Assessment Year 2005-06) Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Limited, बिाम/ D.C.I.T, Station Road, Surendranagar Vs. Lakhtar, Dist. Surendranagar, Gujarat-382775 स्ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4258P (अपीला््/Appellant) (प्य््/ Respondent) अपीला््थरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R Shri B.D Gupta, Sr. D.R. प्य््करथरसे/Respondent By: सुिणाईकरतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 08/06/2023 घोवणाकरतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/09/2023 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

section 80-IA of the Act 5. However, the AO found that the assessee has been carried out its business activities from the assessment year 1994-95 as evident from the depreciation

SALIM ABDULLAH RATHOD,MUNDRA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 277/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Salim Abdullah Rathod, Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 6316, Swami Vivekanand Nagar New Vs. Gandhidham Kutch, Gujarat Swaminarayan Temple Road Bhutda 370465 Wadi, Gujarat, 370465 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adnpp3110E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation @ 30% as claimed by the assessee. Further, we note that CIT has allowed partly to the extent of 15%. We are of the view after rejecting the books of accounts, no addition has been made by the AO under Section-143(3). The assessment has taken place under Section-144 of the Income

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), , RAJKOT vs. SYMBOSA GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED, WANKANER

section\n143(3) r.w.s.263 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, dated 31.03.2022, should\nbe quashed. Accordingly, we quash the same.\n18. Now coming on the merits of the case, we note that before ld. CIT(A), the\nassessee had submitted the same documents and evidences, which were\nsubmitted during the assessment proceedings, before the assessing officer. The\nassessee submitted written

M/S SHREE RAJMOTI INDS.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE A. C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

5. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax {Appeals] erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1) of the Act. The levy of penalty is not justified. 2. Without prejudice to ground no 1, the levy of penalty

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)

section 35D of the Act.[ This is ground No.2 of cross objection No. 23 and ground No. 2 of cross objection No. 24.] (ii) Ground No.2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of depreciation of land cost of windmill to the extent of Rs.4,05,600/- and allowing the said amount

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)

section 35D of the Act.[ This is ground No.2 of cross objection No. 23 and ground No. 2 of cross objection No. 24.] (ii) Ground No.2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of depreciation of land cost of windmill to the extent of Rs.4,05,600/- and allowing the said amount