SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2011-12 Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Vs. Pr.Cit, Rajkot-1 Bank Ltd. Rajkot. ‘Jilla Bank Bhavan’, Kasturba Road Opp: Chaudhari High School Rajkot. Pan : Aaaar 0564 K 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2023

disallowed as deduction. Such orders cannot be held to be erroneous 3. The learned Principal CIT is not permitted in law to pre-judge taxability of Rs. 25.00 Crore transferred from Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debt to Statutory Reserve and propose the same to be taxed which effectively serves as directions to AO to make specified addition

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:

36(1)(via): Hence, it is clearly implied that if the legislature wanted a particular reserve to be continued and maintained, it has so provided, but in case of a provision for bad and doubtful debts, there is no such explicit power under which it can be said that a transfer to another account means that there arises an income

SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK MANAGER (F & A), RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 36(1)(v) of the Act, any sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards an approved gratuity fund created by him for the benefit of his employees under an irrevocable trust is allowable as a deduction in the computation of income from business/profession. Amount is allowable on payment basis. So, assessee had added

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. CITIZENS CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

disallowed the claim of deduction of the assessee on the ground that section 36(1)(viia) of the Act applies only in cases where assessee has given rural advances. The AO held that deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act is allowable only for rural advances and the aforesaid section provides a two-fold deduction

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. CITIZENS CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

disallowed the claim of deduction of the assessee on the ground that section 36(1)(viia) of the Act applies only in cases where assessee has given rural advances. The AO held that deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act is allowable only for rural advances and the aforesaid section provides a two-fold deduction

ITO WARD 3(1)(4), RAJKOT-STATION- AMRELI, AMRELI, GUJARAT vs. AVADH AGRI EXPORTS, AMRELI, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

Via del Botteghino, 24/26 Ltd., 5th Floor, Sahar Classique, Sahar 50018 Scandicci (Florence), Italy Ph Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai. +39 055 52 191 Ever RM Shipping Co., Ltd. BD 204, No agent in India Kookminseokwan 257-3, Gong deuk Dong, Mapo-Ku, Seoul, 121-804, Korea Thus, no TDS on foreign based companies are required to be deducted. The assessee

AMRELI JILLA MADHYASTH SAHKARI BANK LIMITED,,AMRELI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, RAJKOT

In the result ground number 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

disallowance of Rs. 2 lacs confirmed by both the lower authorities relating to provision for contingency of standard assets claimed by the assessee u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Before proceeding further we would like to reproduce the provision of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act as under :- “Other deductions. M/s Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Khargone ITA No.455/Ind/2018

M/S. SHAILDEEP ENGINEERING P. LTD., RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2019-20 Shaildeep Engineering P.Ltd. Vs. Adit, Cpc C-1/38, Gidc, Aji Industrial Delhi. Estate, Phase-1, Rajkot Sanosara B.O.,Jaliya Rajkot 360 003. Pan : Aaecs 9245 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Akash Goda, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 27.12.201 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2019-20. 2. As Transpires From Orders Of The Authority Below, The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Vis-À-Vis Adjustment Made To The Income Of The Assessee In The Intimation Made Under Section 143(1) Of The Act By Way Of Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80Jja Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,02,500/- & Disallowance Of Employees’ 2 Contribution To Esi & Pf In Terms Of Section 36(1)(Va) Amounting To Rs.2,81,444/-. The Reasons For Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 80Jja Being Non-Filing Of Necessary Audit Report In Form No.10Da Along With Return Of Income & That For Disallowance Of Employees’ Contribution To Esi & Pf Being Late Deposit Of The Same With The Requisite Funds.

section 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delay in the deposit with the requisite funds is confirmed. 4. Vis-à-vis the aspect of disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under section80JJA of the Act on account of non-filing of requisite audit report along with return of income, the ld.counsel for the assessee admitted that

SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NFAC , NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed, by the assessing officer, resulting in addition to the total income of the assessee by the same amount. 6. Similarly, as discussed in details in the reasons for reopening, the AO had reason to believe that the assessee has not reversed the excess provision made for NPA amounting to Rs.448.09 Lakhs. The assessing officer noted that the assessee

M/S P.M. DIESELS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 66/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2 M/s. P.M. Diesels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax-2, Rajkot erred in confirming action of assessing officer in disallowing Rs. 13,36

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

via unaccounted cash of M/s Aryan Arcade. It may be reiterated that this fact was admitted by Shri Himanshu Raiyani in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. When the director of M/s Aryan Arcade Limited, Shri Nikhil Patel, also accepted above narrated facts. Chetan Rokad and Shri Gopal Chudasma were confronted with

ACCURATE BUILDCON ,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

via unaccounted cash of M/s Aryan Arcade. It may be reiterated that this fact was admitted by Shri Himanshu Raiyani in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. When the director of M/s Aryan Arcade Limited, Shri Nikhil Patel, also accepted above narrated facts. Chetan Rokad and Shri Gopal Chudasma were confronted with

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

via unaccounted cash of M/s Aryan Arcade. It may be reiterated that this fact was admitted by Shri Himanshu Raiyani in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. When the director of M/s Aryan Arcade Limited, Shri Nikhil Patel, also accepted above narrated facts. Chetan Rokad and Shri Gopal Chudasma were confronted with

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

via unaccounted cash of M/s Aryan Arcade. It may be reiterated that this fact was admitted by Shri Himanshu Raiyani in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. When the director of M/s Aryan Arcade Limited, Shri Nikhil Patel, also accepted above narrated facts. Chetan Rokad and Shri Gopal Chudasma were confronted with

ACCURATE BUILDCON ,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

via unaccounted cash of M/s Aryan Arcade. It may be reiterated that this fact was admitted by Shri Himanshu Raiyani in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. When the director of M/s Aryan Arcade Limited, Shri Nikhil Patel, also accepted above narrated facts. Chetan Rokad and Shri Gopal Chudasma were confronted with

SHREE JAMNAGAR JILLA SAHAKARI KHARID VECHAN SANGH LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. DCIT-CIR-2(1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.223/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19

VIA of Rs.32,42,759/-. Subsequently, case was selected for scrutiny to verify the claim of deduction. The AO issued notice u/s 142(1) and assessee could not make compliance. However, AO completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act, by making disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act to the tune of Rs.12

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:

disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of advertisement expenses of Rs.5 lacs without appreciating the fact that the appellant has not even claimed deduction for the same. The appellant craves leave to amend, modify, add or substitute the above grounds of appeal. The 1st issue raised by the assessee in ground number 1 is that the learned 3. CIT-A erred