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.

7. It was also pointed out that Department’s appeal against the order passed by the learned CIT(A) approving the assessee’s basis of computing profits from its eligible business for the purpose of creation of special reserve under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had been dismissed by the ITAT on account of the tax effect being

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

94 627 1 14 92 283 Repairs & maintenance 3 40 882 25 61 698 Other mfg. expenses 58 76 989 49 00 203 7 50 40 850 5 55 74 943 Credit of Wind farm on Units Generated 1 05 91 915 1 15 89 169 Depreciation Related

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

7,16,94,222/-. The project was to be completed within a period of 12 months and free maintenance was for a period of 60 months after completion of the project. The terms and conditions of the contract were similar to those as mentioned in the contracts entered by the government or by its agencies for developing any infrastructure facility

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

7,16,94,222/-. The project was to be completed within a period of 12 months and free maintenance was for a period of 60 months after completion of the project. The terms and conditions of the contract were similar to those as mentioned in the contracts entered by the government or by its agencies for developing any infrastructure facility

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

94,800/- (loss) MCDX Rs.18,63,380/- (loss) FNO Rs.8,54,942/- (loss) Total Rs.34,80,931/- (loss incurred) The assessing officer noticed that assessee has incurred an aggregate loss of Rs. 34,80,931/-, on securities transactions. In light of this necessary clarification w.r.t investment/transaction carried out with M/s Angel Broking Pvt Ltd, called for from the assessee. 4.In

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

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)

94,549/- by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act on the alleged ground that appellant failed to prove one-to-one nexus from bank account that investment has been done entirely from its own funds. (vi) Alleged that assessee (i) paid excessive terminal handling charges to Shreeji Power and Insulators Pvt. Ltd. [SPIPL] and (ii) paid

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)

94,549/- by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act on the alleged ground that appellant failed to prove one-to-one nexus from bank account that investment has been done entirely from its own funds. (vi) Alleged that assessee (i) paid excessive terminal handling charges to Shreeji Power and Insulators Pvt. Ltd. [SPIPL] and (ii) paid

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.578-581/Rjt/2008 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2000-01 To 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.67/Rjt/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05) बनाम/ Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Limited, Cit(Appeals)-Xvi, Station Road, Lakhtar, Dist. Ahmedabad. Vs. Surrendranagar, Gujarat-382775 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4258P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar Das, Dr. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 16/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Rajkot [Cit(A) In Short] Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2000-01 To 2004-05. Ita No.578-581/Rjt/2008 A.Y.S 2000-01 To 2004-05 First We Take Assessee’S Appeal Bearing Ita No. 578/Rjt/2008. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

7. However, the learned DR for the Revenue before us relied on the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned orders and the case laws cited therein. Before we proceed to enquire whether the reopening under section 147 of the Act was valid as per the provisions

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.578-581/Rjt/2008 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2000-01 To 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.67/Rjt/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05) बनाम/ Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Limited, Cit(Appeals)-Xvi, Station Road, Lakhtar, Dist. Ahmedabad. Vs. Surrendranagar, Gujarat-382775 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4258P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar Das, Dr. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 16/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Rajkot [Cit(A) In Short] Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2000-01 To 2004-05. Ita No.578-581/Rjt/2008 A.Y.S 2000-01 To 2004-05 First We Take Assessee’S Appeal Bearing Ita No. 578/Rjt/2008. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

7. However, the learned DR for the Revenue before us relied on the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned orders and the case laws cited therein. Before we proceed to enquire whether the reopening under section 147 of the Act was valid as per the provisions

ANUP A. SHAH,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 106/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2005-2006 वष"

depreciation Rs.10,208/- Total confirmed additions Rs.21,71,700/- 8. Accordingly, the AO issued fresh show notice proposing to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition confirmed by the learned CIT(A) for concealment of income. The assessee in reply only submitted that penalty proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction. Hence, the same

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

94,775 Total 4.2 The AO also observed that M/s. Sutreja & Co. has shown a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- in its books of accounts as receivable from the assessee. However, the AO further observed that the assessee has not shown any payable to M/s. Sutreja & Co. in its books of accounts

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION CO,TALALA, JUNAGADH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

In the result, ground no.2(e ) raised by the assessee, is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.608/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Krishna Construction Co. The Dcit, Cir.1(1) बनाम Below Dr.Antalas Hospital Rajkot. Station Road, Talala (Gir) Vs. Junagadh. Pan : Aaifk 8897 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R.D. Lalchandani, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini:

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The disallowance is not justified, [e] The disallowance of Rs. 69,40,248/- being 20% on ad hoc basis out of direct expenses. The disallowance is not justified.” 3. The first grievance of the assessee, is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the assessing officer