M/S. SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. ,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DCIT, SURENDRANAGR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

5,52,499 only. But the assessee has neither computed the long-term capital gain as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act nor claimed the benefit of indexation as provided under section 48 of the Act. Therefore, the AO treated the same as business income of the assessee and made the addition to the total income

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.

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

SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO OP PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 429/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Surendranagar District Co. Op. Acit, Circle, Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Surendranagar-363035 Plot No.249, Phase 2 Gidc Market Yard Circle, Sursagar Dairy, Wadhwan Road, Surendranagar-363035 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : Heard On 09/10/2025, Refixed For Clarification On 03.11.2025 & Finally Heard On 02.02.2026 : 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

5 of 25 Surendranagar Dist. Co-op. Milk Producer pertaining to the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 and 2009-10 and 2010-11. “6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused materials available on record. The issue in the case on hand relates whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under section

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

2) of section 72 and sub-section (3) of section 73, the allowance or the part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, as the case may be, shall be added to the amount of the allowance for depreciation for the following previous year and deemed to be part of that allowance, or if there

THE DHARANGADHRA PEOPLE'S CO. OP. BANK LTD.,,DHRANGADHRA vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.130-131/Rjt/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ The Dharangadhra People’S D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Kalpvarksh, Mandvi Chowk, Surendranagar. Dhrangadhara, Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat1192R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 20/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 01/02/2017, 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 16/02/2015 & 27/11/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.S) 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

2) of section 73 or sub-section (1) 28 [or sub-section (3)] of section 74 29 [or sub-section (3) of section 74A].” 7.4 In view of the above we conclude that once a return filed under section 139(3) of the Act has been considered a return filed in the section 139(1) of the Act which implies

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

2), and relied on Section 49(1)(e). However, the Court emphasized that Section 47 excludes the transfer of a capital asset in an approved scheme of amalgamation. The Court also highlighted that the provisions referred to by the assessee are in a Chapter related to "Capital Gains," whereas an approved scheme of amalgamation operates by law, as recognized

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

KUTCH DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,ANJAR - KUTCH vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

Depreciation Fund Exp.\n4,11,045.00\nMember's Gift Exp.\n2,25,020.00\nDepreciation\n4,23,927.00\nLess:\nIncome from Other Head\n(-)18,93,786.00\nInterest Income\n18,41,436.00\nDividend Income\n52,350.00\nB Section 80P(2)(d) - Interest or dividend from its investment with any\nother co-operative society\nInterest Income from other Co-operative\nBank

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

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,, 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,, 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

DR. SUBHASH PETHALJI CHAVDA AHIR KELVANI MANDAL,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-2,, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

2½% and they also claimed depreciation on furniture @ 5%. The question which arose before the Court for determination was : whether depreciation could be denied to the assessee, as expenditure on acquisition of the assets had been treated as application of income in the year of acquisition? It was held by the Bombay High Court that section

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

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. DEEP RECYCLING IND.,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) submitted that the AO has not pointed out any defect in the submission made by it during the assessment proceedings. The AO has just mention in his order that the case law relied by the assessee are not applicable to the facts

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. DEEP RECYCLOING INDUSTRIES,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) submitted that the AO has not pointed out any defect in the submission made by it during the assessment proceedings. The AO has just mention in his order that the case law relied by the assessee are not applicable to the facts

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

depreciation and investment allowances under section 32AC of the Act submitted that in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee vide annexure -13 furnished complete details of assets purchased. The AO after verification of the same and considering the voluminous of data and being first year of e-assessment allowed the claim of the assessee

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

2. On legal and factual status of the case, the learned CIT(A)-2, Rajkot ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.” 3. As is evident from the grounds, sole grievance of the Revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) relates to allowance of claim of additional depreciation to the assessee under section