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

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

1. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1 ("the Principal CIT") has erred in fact and in law in cancelling the Order passed u/s 143(3) dated 04.03.2014 and directing the Assessing Officer to "pass a fresh assessment order", by invoking powers u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") despite the fact that the mandatory

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

Appeal is dismissed

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts. In the assessment proceedings, the AO disallowed

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

Appeal is dismissed

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts. In the assessment proceedings, the AO disallowed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2015-16 Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income- 1St Floor, Lic Jeevan Tax-1, Rajkot. Prakash Building, Wing-2, Tagore Road Rajkot 360 001. Pan : Aahas 2116 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Smt.Asha Vyas, Ar Revenue By : Ms.Jaya Chaudhary Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Rajkot [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Pr.Cit]By Invoking Provision Of Section 263Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 31.3.2021Pertainingto The Asst.Year2015-16. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In The Appeal Are As Under:

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, while discussing the case on merits at para 5.1 of the order as under: “5.1 As regards the submission of the assessee on merits of the disallowance

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)

disallowed the sum of ₹ 40 lakhs on the ground that it pertains to provision for standard assets and not for bad and doubtful debts and since deduction under section 36(1)(viia

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)(viii), 36(1)(v) and 36(1)(viia) amounting to Rs. 46,83,83,284/-. 5. Learned PCIT has failed to consider the fact that your Honour's assessee is a Regional Rural Bank required to furnish details with respect to cash deposit during demonetization period to Reserve Bank of India on daily basis. The Assessee

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

section 142(1), the assessee filed written submission, on 11th March 2022, before the assessing officer which are reproduced by the assessing officer in his assessment order page No.4 to 5. 5.After due verification of the details filed by the assessee, the assessing officer noted that the assessee has only submitted certain basic details such as computation of income

RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,,RAJKOT vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), , RAJKOT

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us In This Regard Reads As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Rajkot-1 Has Erred In Confirming The Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 271(L)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Imposing A Penalty Of Rs. 18,50,900 On The Appellant Despite The Fact That The Claim For The Deduction Was Bona-Fide, The Details Furnished For The Claim For Allowance Were Not Found To Be Inaccurate & That There Was No Deliberate Attempt To Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars On The Part Of The Appellant Assesse. The Ao'S Action Being Erroneous On Facts & In Law, The Appellant Prays That The Penalty Of Rs. 18,50,900 Be Deleted..

36(1)(viia) of the Act. The same was disallowed in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act holding that such provisions for Standard assets do not qualify for deduction under the section

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

Bench: Us.

disallowance could be made on account of the assessee having followed a different method for valuing its stock in trade for Income Tax return purposes. I.T.A No. 385/Rjt/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 5 ACIT vs. The Rajkot District Co.Op. Bank Ltd. 7. It was also pointed out that Courts had on several occasions held that the assessee was entitled