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)

disallowances were made, the A.O. namely dividend income received from Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., while doing regular assessment and reassessment

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

reassessed or recomputed as loss than\nthe amount of tax will be calculated on the under reported\nincome as it was the total income.\nThis finding is w.r.t. disallowance

SHRI RAJESHKUMAR MAHESHBHAI MANEK,ANJAR KUTCH vs. THE ITO WARD-2, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, additional legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed herewith and added back to his total income.” 11. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that reasons were recorded by the assessing officer, under section 147 of the Act, to reassess

SHRI MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN ,GANDHIDHAM vs. THEACIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceeding were initiated with respect to shipping agency business and the same was also accepted in the course of survey operation. Now, the assessee is claiming the set off of the loss of the share trading activity which is unconnected with the shipping trading business. Thus, the AO disallowed

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceeding were initiated with respect to shipping agency business and the same was also accepted in the course of survey operation. Now, the assessee is claiming the set off of the loss of the share trading activity which is unconnected with the shipping trading business. Thus, the AO disallowed

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceeding were initiated with respect to shipping agency business and the same was also accepted in the course of survey operation. Now, the assessee is claiming the set off of the loss of the share trading activity which is unconnected with the shipping trading business. Thus, the AO disallowed

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceeding were initiated with respect to shipping agency business and the same was also accepted in the course of survey operation. Now, the assessee is claiming the set off of the loss of the share trading activity which is unconnected with the shipping trading business. Thus, the AO disallowed

VIDHYASAGAR CHARITABLE TRUST,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee Trust had paid rent to Shri RP Modi, who was the settlor of the trust, Vidhyasagar Charitable Trust vs. ITO(E) Asst.Year –2011-12 amounting to ₹ 22 lakhs. Accordingly, the AO disallowed

SHRI VIJAY JAMNADAS VINCHHI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), JAMNAGAR

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

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

reassessment order was made in 2017 and appellate order in 2019. The assessee could not provide the details for the renovation expenses carriedout 12 years back, therefore the assessee should not be denied the claim cost of improvement. In our considered view, the disallowance

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

reassessments. 3. Ensuring Integrity of Financial Reporting: Segregating eligible business profits upholds the integrity of financial statements, reflecting true and fair views of different business segments. Consequences of Non-Compliance 1. Invalid Deduction Claims: Failure to claim the deduction through the profit and loss account may lead to disallowance

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. KISHORE PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

reassessment proceedings the assessee objected to the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act for the reasons furnished by the Assessing Officer. The same were negated by the Assessing Officer and made addition by way of ITA Nos.212 & 213/RJT/2011 Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page 4 of 5 disallowance

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. KISHORE PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

reassessment proceedings the assessee objected to the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act for the reasons furnished by the Assessing Officer. The same were negated by the Assessing Officer and made addition by way of ITA Nos.212 & 213/RJT/2011 Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page 4 of 5 disallowance

SMT RAMILABE RAMJI BHADRA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD 1 (2), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 17/Rjt/2018 अपील Assessment Year : 2007-08 Ramila R. Bhadra, C/O. Laxmi Enterprise, Vs The Income-Tax Officer, C-2-35/2, Gidc, Shankar Tekri, Ward 1(2), Udhyog Nagar, Jamnagar Jamnagar-361004 Pan : Afwpb 3443 F अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/04/2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Ms. Madhumita Roy:-

disallowed the same, which was in turn deleted by the First Appellate Authority in appeal upon considering the remand report filed by the Assessing Officer on the details provided to it. The Co-ordinate Bench, in an appeal preferred by the Department, restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to determine the issue afresh upon reassessing

SHRI SWASTIK COLOR LAB,,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-3(1), , JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 Shri Swastik Color Lab, I.T.O., Nr. Scooter House, Vs. Ward-3(1), Jamnagar. Jamnagar.

disallowance made in respect of the expenditure for the subsequent Assessment Year 2006-07 cannot be a ground for reopening the assessment. The tribunal has therefore, rightly recorded the findings of fact that there is no tangible material on the basis of which assessment for Assessment Year 2005-06 was reopened and the assessment of the subsequent Assessment Year

SHRI NAGICHANA MAHILA DOODH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,AT. NAGICHANA, TAL. MANGROL, DIST. JUNAGADH vs. THE ITO WARD-1, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80P, in theassessee`s case is correct. 10. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. 11. Shri D.M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that the reasons were recorded on different footing to tax the cash credit transaction to the tune of Rs.2

PRANAM ENTERPRISE,JUNAGADH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.391/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pranam Enterprise Vs. The Dcit Office No.3, City Centre, Opp. Circle-1(1), Rajkot New Collector Office, Junagadh – 362001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffp7926H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

disallowed the deductionu/s.80IB(10) of the Act, in the assessment year under consideration. On the basis of the detailed factual and legal discussions as above, we are of the view, that penalty should not be imposed on the assessee. For that, we rely on the judgment of the Jurisdictional Co-ordinate Bench ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Parulben Vijaykumar

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

disallowed, which is apparently a wrong claim and against the provisions of law as discussed above. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx “5. The arguments put forth by the assessee company have been carefully considered and a claim of the assessee has been thoroughly examined in the light of provisions of section 80IA(4) read with explanation inserted after sub section (13) of section

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

disallowed, which is apparently a wrong claim and against the provisions of law as discussed above. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx “5. The arguments put forth by the assessee company have been carefully considered and a claim of the assessee has been thoroughly examined in the light of provisions of section 80IA(4) read with explanation inserted after sub section (13) of section