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 230 to 232 of Companies Act, 2013. The Scheme was approved by the National Company law Tribunal (NCLT) vide its order dated 22nd October 2018. Subsequently, the resultant entity, renamed itself as Gandhi Realty (India) Pvt. Ltd. [PAN: AAACD7535Q), by virtue of 'Certificate of Incorporation pursuant to change of name' dated 23rd January, 2019. As a result of this

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)

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. The ld.PCIT had noticed the first issue from the assessment records that assessee (M/s Saurashtra Gramin Bank) during the previous year 2016-17 relevant to assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18, had made provision for an amount of Rs. 20,78,36,400/-, on account of "Investment Depreciation Reserve" as allowable expenditure

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 has been claimed per along with copies of bills and mode and date of Annexure-13 payment thereof.  Assessee reply dated 06-12-2018: During the year under consideration Share capital of Rs.18,50,00,000/- has been introduced. The funds were introduced by the directors and shareholders and the same were in turn converted into share capital. Unsecured

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

50,000/-, the assessee has not produced enough details to establish the genuineness of the unsecured loan. As regards to ground no.3, in respect of addition made of Rs.4,64,929/- made out of Sundry Creditors, the assessee did not produce the primary bills of the purchases resulting into such Sundry Creditors. As regards to ground no.4

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.

50,620/-. The assessee`s case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Therefore, notice under section 143(2) of the Act, was issued and served upon the assessee. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued along with detailed questionnaire, on 15.01.2019. The authorised representative of the assessee, in response to these notices, submitted written submissions

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. RAJKOT PEOPLES CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed except CO of the assessee in the Asstt

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.

depreciation, if any, is required to be provided for in the accounts. The latest guidelines of the RBI may be referred to for allowing any such claims. 7. The instructions clearly provide for amortisation of premium paid on acquisition of securities when the same are acquired at the rate higher than the face value. Such amortisation would have

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

section 11(1)(a), then assessee cannot claim depreciation on value of such assets. 7. That Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee has filed written submission on 18/02/2025. The details of claim of deduction made u/s36(1)(viii) by the Appellant are as under: Sr. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1. Claim made in the return of income

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.185/Rjt/2023

50,000/-, for sale of bio gas. Thus, it is evident that assets/Plant and Machinery were not put to use before 30.09.2016, as production commenced only on 10.10.2016. Considering the above facts, the ld. PCIT noticed that all these above mentioned facts and evidences, prima facie reveal that the depreciable assets were "put to use" after 30.09.2016 and not prior

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

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

sections 147r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT., RAJKOT

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

sections 147r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

sections 147r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

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

sections 147r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

sections 147r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

sections 147r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated

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.

50 to 53 of the paper- book, is also reproduced hereunder:- 2. Re: Our deduction Claim of Rs.4,94,94,107 U/s 36(1)(viii) of the I.T. Act : 2.1 The Rule of Law - We are a banking institution eligible to deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the I-T.Act. The sectionprovides that "in respect of any special reserve created

M/S. RISHI KIRAN LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE JOINT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX,, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

section 14A of the Act cannot be invoked - Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 has held if no exempt income has been earned by the assessee in ITA Nos.160/Rjt/15 9 & ITA 349 & 379/Ahd/2016 . A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 the relevant assessment year then no disallowance

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S RISHI KIRAN LOGISTICS P. LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

section 14A of the Act cannot be invoked - Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 has held if no exempt income has been earned by the assessee in ITA Nos.160/Rjt/15 9 & ITA 349 & 379/Ahd/2016 . A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 the relevant assessment year then no disallowance

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 68 of the Act. ITA Nos.760 & 761/Rjt/2010 And CO No.32 & 33/Rjt/2010 M/s. Pavan Cosnt. Co. A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2006-07 6.1 The ld DR vehemently supported the order of AO. 7. On the other hand the ld. AR before us submitted that the amount from M/s. Sutreja & Co. was received by the assessee through banking channel. The amount