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

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

32(3) of the UTI Act to the\nunits of UTI for the purpose of holding that the unit is a share. For these reasons, we are in\nagreement with the finding of the High Court on this point also.\n10. For the reasons stated above, we allow C.A. No. 6100 of 1998 preferred by the assessee to\nthe extent

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

32,00,13,650/- by making addition on account of excess claim of deduction u/s 36(1) (viii) of Rs. 75,15,201/-.The appellant is a Co-operative society engaged in the business of providing banking services. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that the appellant had claimed deduction u/s 36(1) (viii) at Rs.2

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

disallowed and added to the total income.\n16. Therefore, learned PCIT held that in view of the Explanation 2(a) of\nsection 263 of the Act, the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer\nu/s 143(3) dated 30.09.2019 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the\ninterest of revenue on the issue of wrong claim

AMRELI JILLA MADHYASTH SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,AMRELI vs. THE DCIT-ACIT-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.548/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Sahakari The Dcit/Acit-2(1) बनाम Bank Ltd. Rajkot. Bhojalram Bhavan Vs. Rajmahel Road Amreli 365 601. Pan : Aaata 2737 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M.Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

disallowed deduction on ground that applicant had not made a provision for bad and doubtful debts as required by section 36(1) (viia)(c) On facts, it was clear that intention of assessee was for deduction under section 36(1)(via) only, though 'provision' was nomenclatured as 'reserve'- Whether even if entry was termed as 'reserve' which according to assessee

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

32. He further drew our attention to the order of the DRP pointing out that the DRP had not even dealt with submissions made by the assessee before it. 33. On the issue of disallowance of bank guarantee commission expenses made under section 37(1) of the Act, we have heard both the parties and also gone through orders

AHLSTROM FIBERCOMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

32. He further drew our attention to the order of the DRP pointing out that the DRP had not even dealt with submissions made by the assessee before it. 33. On the issue of disallowance of bank guarantee commission expenses made under section 37(1) of the Act, we have heard both the parties and also gone through orders

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

32. He further drew our attention to the order of the DRP pointing out that the DRP had not even dealt with submissions made by the assessee before it. 33. On the issue of disallowance of bank guarantee commission expenses made under section 37(1) of the Act, we have heard both the parties and also gone through orders

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2), RAJKOT , RAJKOT

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Jilla Bank Bhavan, Kasturba Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Opp. Chaudhary High School, Road, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afups2094H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 06/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Office [(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 30.03.2023 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

disallowance of provision Rs. 60 Lakh made for standard assets attendance fund. Since, this ground not pressed during the course of argument. Hence, we do not adjudicate Ground No. 1 the Ground No. 1 has dismissed. (ii) Ground No 2 deal with an amount of Rs. 25,00,00,000/- transferred from bad and doubtful debts provision for rural Page

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Disallowance of payment of commission to Shri Rajesh Bhatt :\nRs.3,00,000/-\n\nIn order to levy penalty, u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, on the above three\nitems, the assessing officer issued, show cause notice dated 05.07.2019 to the\nassessee, to show cause, as to why an order imposing a penalty in respect of the\nadditions confirmed above

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Disallowance of payment of commission to Shri Rajesh Bhatt :\nRs.3,00,000/-\n9.\nIn order to levy penalty, u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, on the above three\nitems, the assessing officer issued, show cause notice dated 05.07.2019 to the\nassessee, to show cause, as to why an order imposing a penalty in respect of the\nadditions confirmed above

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GANDHI REALITY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

ii) the value of net assets of the Transferor Company transferred to and recorded by the assessee; was recognized as goodwill in accounts of the assessee. On the perusal of the Section 32(1) and Expl. 3(b) it can be seen that under the Act, depreciation is, inter-alia, allowed on intangible assets in the nature of know

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Disallowance of payment of commission to Shri Rajesh Bhatt :\nRs.3,00,000/-\n9. In order to levy penalty, u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, on the above three\nitems, the assessing officer issued, show cause notice dated 05.07.2019 to the\nassessee, to show cause, as to why an order imposing a penalty in respect of the\nadditions confirmed above

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Disallowance of payment of commission to Shri Rajesh Bhatt :\nRs.3,00,000/-\n9.\nIn order to levy penalty, u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, on the above three\nitems, the assessing officer issued, show cause notice dated 05.07.2019 to the\nassessee, to show cause, as to why an order imposing a penalty in respect of the\nadditions confirmed above

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Disallowance of payment of commission to Shri Rajesh Bhatt :\nRs.3,00,000/-\n9.\nIn order to levy penalty, u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, on the above three\nitems, the assessing officer issued, show cause notice dated 05.07.2019 to the\nassessee, to show cause, as to why an order imposing a penalty in respect of the\nadditions confirmed above

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Disallowance of payment of commission to Shri Rajesh Bhatt :\nRs.3,00,000/-\n9.\nIn order to levy penalty, u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, on the above three\nitems, the assessing officer issued, show cause notice dated 05.07.2019 to the\nassessee, to show cause, as to why an order imposing a penalty in respect of the\nadditions confirmed above

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

disallowed by A.O. on the ground that carried ACIT vs. M/s. Jaxx Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2013-14 forward of such additional depreciation is inadmissible as per provisions of section 32(1)(iia). The ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by following the decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of DCIT vs. Cosmo Films

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)

ii). CIT.v. Amod Stamping (P.) Ltd. (2014) 223 Taxman 256 (Guj.)(HC) (iii). CIT v. Rajendra Brothers (2014) 52 taxmann.com 334 / (2015) 228 Taxman 348(Mag.) (Guj.)(HC) (iv). CIT v. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd. (2013) 219 Taxman 162 (Mag.) (Guj.) (HC) (v). CIT v. R.L. Kalthia Engineering & Automobiles (P.) Ltd. (2013) 215 Taxman

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)

ii). CIT.v. Amod Stamping (P.) Ltd. (2014) 223 Taxman 256 (Guj.)(HC) (iii). CIT v. Rajendra Brothers (2014) 52 taxmann.com 334 / (2015) 228 Taxman 348(Mag.) (Guj.)(HC) (iv). CIT v. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd. (2013) 219 Taxman 162 (Mag.) (Guj.) (HC) (v). CIT v. R.L. Kalthia Engineering & Automobiles (P.) Ltd. (2013) 215 Taxman

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)

ii). CIT.v. Amod Stamping (P.) Ltd. (2014) 223 Taxman 256 (Guj.)(HC) (iii). CIT v. Rajendra Brothers (2014) 52 taxmann.com 334 / (2015) 228 Taxman 348(Mag.) (Guj.)(HC) (iv). CIT v. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd. (2013) 219 Taxman 162 (Mag.) (Guj.) (HC) (v). CIT v. R.L. Kalthia Engineering & Automobiles (P.) Ltd. (2013) 215 Taxman