SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

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

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

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

depreciation.\n[This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19]\n4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of\nassessee and revenue, as follows.\n5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready\nreference.\n“1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that proceedings u/s 148 culminating\ninto order

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

depreciation.\n[This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19]\n4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of\nassessee and revenue, as follows.\n5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready\nreference.\n“1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that proceedings u/s 148 culminating\ninto order

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

depreciation.\n[This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19]\n4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of\nassessee and revenue, as follows.\n5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready\nreference.\n“1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that proceedings u/s 148 culminating\ninto order

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

depreciation.\n[This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19]\n4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of\nassessee and revenue, as follows.\n5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready\nreference.\n“1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that proceedings u/s 148 culminating\ninto order

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

depreciation.\n[This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19]\n4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of\nassessee and revenue, as follows.\n5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready\nreference.\n\"1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that proceedings u/s 148 culminating\ninto order

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

depreciation.\n[This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19]\n4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of\nassessee and revenue, as follows.\n5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready\nreference.\n“1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that proceedings u/s 148 culminating\ninto order

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

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

THA ACIT, CIRCLE MORBI, MORBI vs. M/S. JAXX VITRIFIED PVT. LTD. , MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 32(1) (iia) the expression used is "shall be allowed". Thus the assessee had earned the benefit as soon as he had purchased the new plant and machinery in full but it is restricted to 50% in that particular year on account of period of usages. Such restrictions cannot divest the statutory right Law does not prohibit that balance

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

65,996/- and as per that allowable remuneration comes to Rs. 11,04,69,598/-. However, as per clause maximum remuneration allowable comes to the Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. Hence, remuneration paid Rs. 1,50,00,000/- and it is from profit of Rajkot unit only. It is further clarified that no partners is looking after

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

65,996/- and as per that allowable remuneration comes to Rs. 11,04,69,598/-. However, as per clause maximum remuneration allowable comes to the Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. Hence, remuneration paid Rs. 1,50,00,000/- and it is from profit of Rajkot unit only. It is further clarified that no partners is looking after

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

65,996/-\nand as per that allowable remuneration comes to Rs. 11,04,69,598/-. However, as per clause\nmaximum remuneration allowable comes to the Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. Hence, remuneration paid\nRs. 1,50,00,000/- and it is from profit of Rajkot unit only. It is further clarified that no\npartners is looking after

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

1, Six" State Highway Corridors. I.T.A Nos. 126 & 147/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No 39 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise Ltd. The appellant, after completion of the work, handed over the developed infrastructure facility to the Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department, Thereafter, the assessee had to undertake maintenance of the said infrastructure for a period

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

1, Six" State Highway Corridors. I.T.A Nos. 126 & 147/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No 39 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise Ltd. The appellant, after completion of the work, handed over the developed infrastructure facility to the Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department, Thereafter, the assessee had to undertake maintenance of the said infrastructure for a period

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

65,25,851/-. Due to first time proceeding at his business place, Your Appellant director was in little pressure. As a part of co-operation and for the peace of mind he made disclosure of difference in the valuation of business stock and cash to the Survey team, deposited applicable Income Tax there on. Then after your Appellant's case