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

Depreciation claim on Plant & Machinery amounting to Rs.33,85,988/-, disallowance of expenditure incurred as Entertainment of Expenses amounting to Rs.72,054/-, disallowance of Contribution of PWD Road of Rs.52,34,500/-, disallowance out of Licence/Registration Fees amounting to Rs.11,34,064/-, disallowance under Section 40(A)(9

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

Depreciation claim on Plant & Machinery amounting to Rs.33,85,988/-, disallowance of expenditure incurred as Entertainment of Expenses amounting to Rs.72,054/-, disallowance of Contribution of PWD Road of Rs.52,34,500/-, disallowance out of Licence/Registration Fees amounting to Rs.11,34,064/-, disallowance under Section 40(A)(9

THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. TARABEN VRUJLAL MEHTA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION TRUST,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

9. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. As regards ground no.1 relating to deduction on account of depreciation claimed by the trust vis-a-vis claim of capital expenditure on acquisition of assets on application of income under Section

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

9. CONTRACT NUMBER 10: GIDC CHEMICAL ZONE DAHEJ ROAD 7.13 In this case, Ld. CIT(Appeals) while allowing the relief with the following observations: “11.9 The contract at Sr. No. 10 was between the Gujarat State Road Development Corporation Ltd. and the appellant for construction of roads in GIDC Chemical Zone Dahej. The contract was for construction of roads including

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

9. CONTRACT NUMBER 10: GIDC CHEMICAL ZONE DAHEJ ROAD 7.13 In this case, Ld. CIT(Appeals) while allowing the relief with the following observations: “11.9 The contract at Sr. No. 10 was between the Gujarat State Road Development Corporation Ltd. and the appellant for construction of roads in GIDC Chemical Zone Dahej. The contract was for construction of roads including

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 and investment allowances under section 32AC of the Act submitted that in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee vide annexure -13 furnished complete details of assets purchased. The AO after verification of the same and considering the voluminous of data and being first year of e-assessment allowed the claim of the assessee

SWAMINARAYAN SEVA NIKETAN,,JUNAGADH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-2,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) [Through Virtual Court]

9. Now assessee has come before us by way of second statutory appeal. 10. We have gone through the relevant record and impugned order. Question before us is whether depreciation is to be claimed as double deduction whether in case of the 4 . A.Y. 2014-15 charitable trust that is assessee before us disallowance of depreciation is to be claimed

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

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

Depreciation claimed 1,78,82,307 1,51,65,107 5 WDV 7,85,31,109 9,83,31,838 Manufacturing Sales, Job Work Income and Material Consumption at Rudrapur Unit: No Particulars FY 08-09 FY 09-10 1 Sales 4,79,26,914 14,46,11,771 2 Jobwork Income 0 6,59,264 Total Income Manufacturing

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

Depreciation claimed 1,78,82,307 1,51,65,107 5 WDV 7,85,31,109 9,83,31,838 Manufacturing Sales, Job Work Income and Material Consumption at Rudrapur Unit: No. Particulars FY 08-09 FY 09-10 1 Sales 4,79,26,914 14,46,11,771 2 Jobwork Income 0 6,59,264 Total Income Manufacturing

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

Depreciation claimed 1,78,82,307 1,51,65,107 5 WDV 7,85,31,109 9,83,31,838 Manufacturing Sales, Job Work Income and Material Consumption at Rudrapur Unit: No Particulars FY 08-09 FY 09-10 1 Sales 4,79,26,914 14,46,11,771 2 Jobwork Income 0 6,59,264 Total Income Manufacturing

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

Depreciation claimed 1,78,82,307 1,51,65,107 5 WDV 7,85,31,109 9,83,31,838 Manufacturing Sales, Job Work Income and Material Consumption at Rudrapur Unit: No Particulars FY 08-09 FY 09-10 1 Sales 4,79,26,914 14,46,11,771 2 Jobwork Income 10 Total income Manufacturing

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

Depreciation claimed 1,78,82,307 1,51,65,107 5 WDV 7,85,31,109 9,83,31,838 Manufacturing Sales, Job Work Income and Material Consumption at Rudrapur Unit: No Particulars FY 08-09 FY 09-10 1 Sales 4,79,26,914 14,46,11,771 2 Jobwork Income 10 Total Income Manufacturing

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

Depreciation claimed 1,78,82,307 1,51,65,107 5 WDV 7,85,31,109 9,83,31,838 Manufacturing Sales, Job Work Income and Material Consumption at Rudrapur Unit: No. Particulars FY 08-09 FY 09-10 1 Sales 4,79,26,914 14,46,11,771 2 Jobwork Income 0 6,59,264 Total Income Manufacturing

ASHVIN DINESHBHAI JADAV,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation on fixed assets against deemed income under section 68-Held, yes [Para 14] [In favour of assessee)” (iii) Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench 'A' in the case of ACE Infracity Developers (P.) Ltd. V DCIT held as under: Page 8 of 10 Ashvin D Jadav “7.… It also further mentions that the pre-amended provision of section 115BBE

ALPHA HI-TECH FUEL LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SNR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.68/Rjt/2009 (धििाधरणणवध/ Assessment Year 2005-06) Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Limited, बिाम/ D.C.I.T, Station Road, Surendranagar Vs. Lakhtar, Dist. Surendranagar, Gujarat-382775 स्ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4258P (अपीला््/Appellant) (प्य््/ Respondent) अपीला््थरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R Shri B.D Gupta, Sr. D.R. प्य््करथरसे/Respondent By: सुिणाईकरतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 08/06/2023 घोवणाकरतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/09/2023 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

depreciation claimed by the assessee in different year as well as the deductions claimed under section 80I and 80JJA the of the Act in the earlier assessment years. Thus, the period of 10 years for claiming the benefit of deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the Act has already expired from the initial assessment year. 5.1 The AO also

M/S SHREE RAJMOTI INDS.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE A. C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation could not give rise to any question of concealment of income Whether Tribunal was right in so holding - Held, yes [Para 13] [In favour of assessee]” 8.2. The Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. reported in [2021] 132 taxmann.com 42 (Bombay) held as follows: “Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

M/S RUDRAKSH DETERGENT & CHEMICAL PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 154 of the Act, which caused delay in filing the appeal. The learned AR in support of his contention also filed the affidavit of the director of the assessee company which is placed on record. Accordingly the learned AR prayed before us for the condonation of the delay. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR considering the reasons