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

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

50,620/-. The assessee`s case\nwas selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Therefore, notice under section\n143(2) of the Act, was issued and served upon the assessee. Subsequently, notice\nunder section 142(1) of the Act was issued along with detailed questionnaire, on\n15.01.2019. The authorised representative of the assessee, in response to these\nnotices, submitted written submissions

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

50,000/-, for sale of bio gas.\nThus, it is evident that assets/Plant and Machinery were not put to use before\n30.09.2016, as production commenced only on 10.10.2016. Considering the\nabove facts, the ld. PCIT noticed that all these above mentioned facts and\nevidences, prima facie reveal that the depreciable assets were \"put to use\" after\n30.09.2016 and not prior

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

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

sections 147r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by\nthis consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the\nfacts narrated

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

sections 147r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by\nthis consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the\nfacts narrated

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

sections 147r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by\nthis consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the\nfacts narrated

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

sections 147r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by\nthis consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the\nfacts narrated

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

sections 147r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by\nthis consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the\nfacts narrated

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

sections 147r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by\nthis consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the\nfacts 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

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BHAVANI INDUSTRIES,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 108/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 A.C.I.T., M/S Bhavani Industries, Circle-2(1), Vs. C/1-B, 236/3, Gidc, Rajkot. Aji Industrial Estate, Rajkot.

50 to 80 of the paper book for the purpose of the comparison of the gross profit ratio but there was no adverse comment by the AO. Meaning thereby, the revenue has accepted the profit of the eligible unit in the earlier years. Therefore the same cannot be disturbed in the year under consideration keeping in view of the principles

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

50 40 850 5 55 74 943 Credit of Wind farm on Units Generated 1 05 91 915 1 15 89 169 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

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

depreciated value of plant and equipment as may be determined by the .Engineer. This advance shall be further subject to the condition that: (i) such , plant and equipment are considered by the Engineer to be necessary for the-Works, (ii) such plant and equipment are in working order, and (iii) the Contractor provides an unconditional bank guarantee by a bank

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

depreciated value of plant and equipment as may be determined by the .Engineer. This advance shall be further subject to the condition that: (i) such , plant and equipment are considered by the Engineer to be necessary for the-Works, (ii) such plant and equipment are in working order, and (iii) the Contractor provides an unconditional bank guarantee by a bank