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.

section 139(4) of the Act dated 20-03-2014 wherein business loss of ₹ 1,56,71,108.00 was claimed which resulted the loss for the current year at ₹ 90,96,990.00 and the same was carried forward to the subsequent year. The impugned loss was representing the FDR’s written off made with Madhavpura Mercantile Co-operative Bank

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.:

depreciation, the net income of Rs. 92,40,586/- has been shown. The net business income is claimed as deduction u/s 80P(2)(b) of the Act, in the return filed by the assessee. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the deduction of interest is disallowed and the net interest income of Rs. 34,79,487/- has been treated

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 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

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.376/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Circle-3(1), Vs. Gopalnaga, Opp. Andh Mahila Rajkot. Vikas Gruh, Rajkot.

56,197/-By no stretch of imagination can Section 14A or Rule 3D be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in Section 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure "incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income" This proportion

SHRI JAYANTILAL P. SATIKUNVER,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.469/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11)

depreciation allocated in the ratio of turnover of both the business of the assessee and worked out a sum of - 7,52,199 which was to be allocated to the windmill business. As such learned CIT directed the AO to make the addition for a sum of - 7,52,199.00 to the total income of the assessee by observing

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)

Section-250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), (in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), dated 16.05.2023, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 27.02.2015. Salim Abdullah Rathod v. DCIT 2. The grounds of appeal

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.

depreciation on assets is "assets used for the purpose of business", in Sec. 36(1)(iii) which allows interest on capital, the words used are "borrowed for the purpose of business', the words used in Section 37 which allows any expenditure “.... wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the business" make it not only abundantly clear but mandatory also

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act on account of cessation of liability.” Respectfully, following the same we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A). Hence, ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ITA Nos.760 & 761/Rjt/2010 And CO No.32 & 33/Rjt/2010 M/s. Pavan Cosnt. Co. A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2006-07 44. The last issue

THE ACIT, CIRCLE MORBI, MORBI vs. M/S. VITA GRANITO PVT. LTD., MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2008-09 Acit, Morbi Circle Vs. M/S.Vita Granito P.Ltd. Morbi. B/H. Dariyalal Resort Village-Jambudiya Morbi. Pan : Aaccv 4765 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Rajkot [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 14.3.2019 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2008-09. 2. This Is A Recalled Matter. The Appeal Of The Revenue Was Earlier Dismissed On Account Of Low Tax Effect. However, Subsequently, The Department Filed An Ma Pleading That The Appeal Of The Revenue Could Not Be Dismissed On Account Of Low Tax Effect, Because, It Fell Within The Exceptions Provided In Para-8(C) Of The Board’S Instruction Directing Withdrawal Of Appeals On Account Of 2

section 37(1) of the Act had been disallowed treating the same as capital expenditure, holding the assessee as being entitled to depreciation on the same. The order of the AO reveals that reasons for holding so, was that he found that the assessee to have got enduring benefits on account of the said expenditure. The ld.CIT(A), we have

AMRELI JILLA MADHYASTH SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,AMRELI vs. THE DCIT-ACIT-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.548/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Sahakari The Dcit/Acit-2(1) बनाम Bank Ltd. Rajkot. Bhojalram Bhavan Vs. Rajmahel Road Amreli 365 601. Pan : Aaata 2737 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M.Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

depreciation i.e. (a) Rs.32,22,897/- and 10% average advances of nRs.3,92,33,51,000/- i.e. (b)_ Rs.39,23,35,100/-, total (a) plus (b) Rs.39,55,57,997/- or (ii) Rs.NIL being provision debited to profit & loss account plus Rs.57,00,750/- being 15% of profit & loss appropriation amount of Rs.3

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,, 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)

56,700/-. [ This is ground No.5, ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 of revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 235/ RJT/2016, for assessment year 2011–12, and Ground No.3, in revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 236/RJT/2016, for assessment year 2012– 13, at Rs.2

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)

56,700/-. [ This is ground No.5, ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 of revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 235/ RJT/2016, for assessment year 2011–12, and Ground No.3, in revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 236/RJT/2016, for assessment year 2012– 13, at Rs.2

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)

56,700/-. [ This is ground No.5, ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 of revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 235/ RJT/2016, for assessment year 2011–12, and Ground No.3, in revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 236/RJT/2016, for assessment year 2012– 13, at Rs.2

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)

56,700/-. [ This is ground No.5, ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 of revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 235/ RJT/2016, for assessment year 2011–12, and Ground No.3, in revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 236/RJT/2016, for assessment year 2012– 13, at Rs.2