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.

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

THE ACIT, MORBI CIRCLE,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. VISHALDEEP SPINNING MILLA LTD.,, MUMBAI

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

section 73, the allowance or the part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, as the case may be, shall be added to the amount of the allowance for depreciation

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, , GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH vs. M/S. RIDDHI SIDDHI JEWELLERS, GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue isdismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-2 Vs. M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers Gandhidham. Shop No.1, Plot No.68 Bba (Sough) Gandhidham-Kutch. 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2023

depreciation allowance in amalgamation or demerger. Similarly section 14 72AA provides such set off and carry forward in the case of banking company and sec.72AB provides set off in the case of Co-op. banks. Section 73

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

73,560 9,15,66,115 38,77,759 2.16% 2005-06 90,84,157 27,91,555 61 ,469 0.68% Total 23,93,86,067 10,99,87,129 40,98,852 1.05% 13. At this stage, we would like to make a reference to section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which contemplates that where

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

73,995/- adopted by the AO. The 20% limit for computation of deduction u/s 36(1) (vii) is to be determined on the figure of Rs. 23,26,34,782/-, which amounts to Rs.4,65,26,965/- Accordingly ground no. 2 is treated as allowed.” 2. The amount actually carried to the Special Reserve

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

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 5 86 46 481 6 63 78 651 Finished goods 1 11 79 254 77 63 967 Total

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation @12.5% thereon. However, the ld CIT(A) treated the part of the machinery repairing expenses incurred for the reconditioning of the existing machineries. As per the ld CIT(A) the amount of repairing expenses was representing the normal wear and tear expenses. Therefore the same cannot be treated as capital in nature. From the preceding discussion, we note that

OM LAMCOAT PVT LTD,MORBI vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 286 & 287/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) बनाम M/S. Om Lamcoat Pvt. Ltd. The Acit, 8-A, Kandla National Highway, Vs. Central Circle -1, Opp. Dadashri Nagar, At. Morbi – Aayakar Bhavan, Amruta 363642 Estate, M. G. Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan No. : Aabco8163G (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/09/2025

depreciation as per the provisions of the Companies Act. Thus, the issue of scrutiny of P&L account prepared by the Company is still wide open. Therefore, the assessee's claim regarding not altering the book profit by the amount of gross profit estimated on the unaccounted transactions was not considered by the assessing officer. 9. The assessee also argued

OM LAMCOAT PVT LTD,MORBI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 286 & 287/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) बनाम M/S. Om Lamcoat Pvt. Ltd. The Acit, 8-A, Kandla National Highway, Vs. Central Circle -1, Opp. Dadashri Nagar, At. Morbi – Aayakar Bhavan, Amruta 363642 Estate, M. G. Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan No. : Aabco8163G (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/09/2025

depreciation as per the provisions of the Companies Act. Thus, the issue of scrutiny of P&L account prepared by the Company is still wide open. Therefore, the assessee's claim regarding not altering the book profit by the amount of gross profit estimated on the unaccounted transactions was not considered by the assessing officer. 9. The assessee also argued

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)

73,201.00 only. As such, the assessee has shown net profit from such activity for - 40,10,342.00 only which was claimed as exempted under section 80-IA of the Act. However, the ld. CIT found that 1 There was no separate book of account maintained by the assessee with respect to the windmill business. 2 Against the income

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S P.C. PATEL & CO.,, BHUJ

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2014- 15. I.T.A No. 194/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2 ACIT Vs. M/s. P C Patel & Co. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Partnership Firm engaged in the business of Earth

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 195, as no sum in the hands of the recipients, is chargeable under the Act. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the decisions of AAR are applicable only to the petitioner before AAR and there is express bar against the applicability of AAR's decision, as a precedent in other cases and therefore, the assessing officer has grossly erred

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 195, as no sum in the hands of the recipients, is chargeable under the Act. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the decisions of AAR are applicable only to the petitioner before AAR and there is express bar against the applicability of AAR's decision, as a precedent in other cases and therefore, the assessing officer has grossly erred

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 195, as no sum in the hands of the recipients, is chargeable under the Act. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the decisions of AAR are applicable only to the petitioner before AAR and there is express bar against the applicability of AAR's decision, as a precedent in other cases and therefore, the assessing officer has grossly erred

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 195, as no sum in the hands of the recipients, is chargeable under the Act. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the decisions of AAR are applicable only to the petitioner before AAR and there is express bar against the applicability of AAR's decision, as a precedent in other cases and therefore, the assessing officer has grossly erred

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 195, as no sum in the hands of the recipients, is chargeable under the Act. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the decisions of AAR are applicable only to the petitioner before AAR and there is express bar against the applicability of AAR's decision, as a precedent in other cases and therefore, the assessing officer has grossly erred

SHRI PRAKASH J. BAGDAI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO-WD-16(1)(1), MUMBAI, PRESENT JURISDICTION WITH ITO-WARD-1 (2)(4), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 138/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2007-2008 Prakash J. Bagdai, I.T.O., C/O M.N. Manvar & Co., Vs. Ward-16(1)(1), Chartered Accountant, Mumbai. 504-Star Plaza, (Present Jurisdiction With Phulchhab Chowk, I.T.O, Rajkot. Ward-1(2)(4), Rajkot.)

depreciation is claimed. " 5. The Ld. C1T(A) - 1, Rajkot dismissed the request for additional evidences under Rule 46A of IT. Rules, 1962 on alleged finding that none of the conditions under Rule 46A is satisfied and dismissed the appeal. 3. At the outset, we note that there was a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee for 73

SMT. ILLABEN JAYANTKUMAR DOSHI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.124/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13

73,941/-. However, you had charged interest of Rs.5,35,493/- only from Parul J Doshi, whom loan of Rs.55,23,730/- was given. No interest had been charged from remaining loans and advances allowed. It is observed that no explanation had been offered for non-charging of interest as well as purpose of loans and advances given

M/S. SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Vitrified Tiles. The Return Of Income Has Been E-Filed By The Assessee, On 10/09/2016 For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17, Reporting Loss Of Rs. 5,68,00,829/-, Which Was Later Revised On 09/03/2018, Declaring Total Loss Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/-, Claiming Investment Allowance U/S 32Ac Of The Income Tax Act. The Case Has Been Selected For Complete Scrutiny (Cass) Specifically To Examine The Followings: 1) Whether Outward Foreign Remittance Is From Disclosed Sources & Appropriate Withholding & Reporting Obligation Have Been Complied With; 2) Whether Investment & Income Relating To Properties Are Duly Disclosed; 3) Whether Receipt Of Foreign Remittance Has Been Correctly Offered For Tax And, 4) Whether Sundry Creditors Are Genuine. 4. The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 Was Passed By Dcit, Morbi Circle, Morbi, Being The Assessing Officer (Ao), On 21/12/2018, Allowing The Loss Claimed Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/- To Be Carry Forward To Subsequent Years. 2

73,667/-). However, out of 100 creditors, contra confirmations from only 11 creditors (amounting Rs. 2,99,42,176/-) are available physically on the record. 5 ITA 276/Rjt/2019 (AY 2016-17) SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. 9. The ld PCIT also noticed regarding the claim of Investment Allowance u/s 32AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide letter dated 10/12/2018, following