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

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

56,106/- and after reducing loss of Rs. 43,69,773/- for A.Y.2010-11, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act at Rs. 2,88,50,633/-. The assessee submitted that it is manufacturing auto parts for Tata Motors Ltd and other vehicle manufacturing industries, at Rajkot, as well as Rudrapur at Tata Vendor Park, which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

56,106/- and after reducing loss of Rs. 43,69,773/- for A.Y.2010-11, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act at Rs. 2,88,50,633/-. The assessee submitted that it is manufacturing auto parts for Tata Motors Ltd and other vehicle manufacturing industries, at Rajkot, as well as Rudrapur at Tata Vendor Park, which

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

56,106/- and after reducing loss of Rs. 43,69,773/- for A.Y.2010-11, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act at Rs. 2,88,50,633/-. The assessee submitted that it is manufacturing auto parts for Tata Motors Ltd and other vehicle manufacturing industries, at Rajkot, as well as Rudrapur at Tata Vendor Park, which

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ADDI. CIT, RANGE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

56,106/- and after reducing\nloss of Rs. 43,69,773/- for A.Y.2010-11, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s\n80-IC of the Act at Rs. 2,88,50,633/-. The assessee submitted that it is\nmanufacturing auto parts for Tata Motors Ltd and other vehicle manufacturing\nindustries, at Rajkot, as well as Rudrapur at Tata Vendor Park, which

ASSISTANT COMMISSINER OF IINCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

56,106/- and after reducing\nloss of Rs. 43,69,773/- for A.Y.2010-11, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s\n80-IC of the Act at Rs. 2,88,50,633/-. The assessee submitted that it is\nmanufacturing auto parts for Tata Motors Ltd and other vehicle manufacturing\nindustries, at Rajkot, as well as Rudrapur at Tata Vendor Park, which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

56,106/- and after reducing\nloss of Rs. 43,69,773/- for A.Y.2010-11, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s\n80-IC of the Act at Rs. 2,88,50,633/-. The assessee submitted that it is\nmanufacturing auto parts for Tata Motors Ltd and other vehicle manufacturing\nindustries, at Rajkot, as well as Rudrapur at Tata Vendor Park, which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

56,106/- and after reducing\nloss of Rs. 43,69,773/- for A.Y.2010-11, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s\n80-IC of the Act at Rs. 2,88,50,633/-. The assessee submitted that it is\nmanufacturing auto parts for Tata Motors Ltd and other vehicle manufacturing\nindustries, at Rajkot, as well as Rudrapur at Tata Vendor Park, which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

56,106/- and after reducing\nloss of Rs. 43,69,773/- for A.Y.2010-11, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s\n80-IC of the Act at Rs. 2,88,50,633/-. The assessee submitted that it is\nmanufacturing auto parts for Tata Motors Ltd and other vehicle manufacturing\nindustries, at Rajkot, as well as Rudrapur at Tata Vendor Park, which

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.

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 and maintained by a specified entity, an amount not exceeding twenty

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. SAURASHTRA CEMENT LTD.,, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs.9,82,000/- being 2/3rd out of entertainment expenses on account of alleged non-business and personal use. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. A.Ys. 2010-11 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts

SAURASHTA CEMENT LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs.9,82,000/- being 2/3rd out of entertainment expenses on account of alleged non-business and personal use. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. A.Ys. 2010-11 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts