THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

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)

2 of Revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 233/RJT/ 2016 for assessment year 2009 –10. [ There is similar ground No.2 in revenue`s appeal in ITA No.234/RJT/2016, at Rs.3,54,67,402/- (iii). Ground No.3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of interest under section

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)

2 of Revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 233/RJT/ 2016 for assessment year 2009 –10. [ There is similar ground No.2 in revenue`s appeal in ITA No.234/RJT/2016, at Rs.3,54,67,402/- (iii). Ground No.3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of interest under section

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)

2 of Revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 233/RJT/ 2016 for assessment year 2009 –10. [ There is similar ground No.2 in revenue`s appeal in ITA No.234/RJT/2016, at Rs.3,54,67,402/- (iii). Ground No.3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of interest under section

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.

2. Re: Our deduction Claim of Rs.4,94,94,107 U/s 36(1)(viii) of the I.T. Act : 2.1 The Rule of Law - We are a banking institution eligible to deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the I-T.Act. The sectionprovides that "in respect of any special reserve created and maintained by a specified entity, an amount not exceeding twenty

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

VIII Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Bad debts (Co-operative bank) - Assessment year 2008-09 Whether, co-operative bank is a non-scheduled bank and. thus, entitled to claim benefit of provisions of section 361 (viia) (a) - Held, yes Whether where assessee, a co-operative bank, had created provision for bad and doubtful debts though

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

56,106/- and after reducing loss of Rs. 43,69,773/- for A.Y.2010-11, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act at Rs. 2,88,50,633/-. The assessee submitted that it is manufacturing auto parts for Tata Motors Ltd and other vehicle manufacturing industries, at Rajkot, as well as Rudrapur at Tata Vendor Park, which

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

56,106/- and after reducing loss of Rs. 43,69,773/- for A.Y.2010-11, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act at Rs. 2,88,50,633/-. The assessee submitted that it is manufacturing auto parts for Tata Motors Ltd and other vehicle manufacturing industries, at Rajkot, as well as Rudrapur at Tata Vendor Park, which

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

56,106/- and after reducing loss of Rs. 43,69,773/- for A.Y.2010-11, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act at Rs. 2,88,50,633/-. The assessee submitted that it is manufacturing auto parts for Tata Motors Ltd and other vehicle manufacturing industries, at Rajkot, as well as Rudrapur at Tata Vendor Park, which

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ADDI. CIT, RANGE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

56,106/- and after reducing loss of Rs. 43,69,773/- for A.Y.2010-11, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act at Rs. 2,88,50,633/-. The assessee submitted that it is manufacturing auto parts for Tata Motors Ltd and other vehicle manufacturing industries, at Rajkot, as well as Rudrapur at Tata Vendor Park, which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

56,106/- and after reducing loss of Rs. 43,69,773/- for A.Y.2010-11, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act at Rs. 2,88,50,633/-. The assessee submitted that it is manufacturing auto parts for Tata Motors Ltd and other vehicle manufacturing industries, at Rajkot, as well as Rudrapur at Tata Vendor Park, which

ASSISTANT COMMISSINER OF IINCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

56,106/- and after reducing loss of Rs. 43,69,773/- for A.Y.2010-11, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act at Rs. 2,88,50,633/-. The assessee submitted that it is manufacturing auto parts for Tata Motors Ltd and other vehicle manufacturing industries, at Rajkot, as well as Rudrapur at Tata Vendor Park, which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

56,106/- and after reducing loss of Rs. 43,69,773/- for A.Y.2010-11, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act at Rs. 2,88,50,633/-. The assessee submitted that it is manufacturing auto parts for Tata Motors Ltd and other vehicle manufacturing industries, at Rajkot, as well as Rudrapur at Tata Vendor Park, which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

56,106/- and after reducing loss of Rs. 43,69,773/- for A.Y.2010-11, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act at Rs. 2,88,50,633/-. The assessee submitted that it is manufacturing auto parts for Tata Motors Ltd and other vehicle manufacturing industries, at Rajkot, as well as Rudrapur at Tata Vendor Park, which

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 1534 of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur v. Assistant Commissioner of Income

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 1534 of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur v. Assistant Commissioner of Income

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

viii) Labour Charge expenditure 7,71,197/- (ix) Transport expenses 1,24,8227 (x) Car loan interest 16,014/- (xi) Vehicle, telephone & vehicle depreciation. Rs. 3,87,633/- Expenses 2. On the facts of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to hove upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is therefore prayed that the order

THE ITO, WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. M/S D. JEWEL,, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.15/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Income Tax Officer, M/S. D. Jewel, Ward-2, Vs. 1-Shishu Mangal Road, Junagadh. Gandhigram, Junagadh.

disallowance of deduction/exemption u/s.10AA of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case. 2. On the facts of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A)-3, Rajkot ought to have upheld the assessment order of the A.O. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) may be set aside and that

KANDLA EXPORT CORPORATION,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the summaries and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.135/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Kandla Exports Corporation Income – Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Bhavan, Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Ahmedabad – 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.136/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Kandla Exports Corporation Vs Income – Tax, Central Circle – Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, . 2(3), 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Bhavan, Ahmedabad - 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent)

viii)The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory (P.) Ltd., reported in (1991) 187 ITR 363 (Allahabad). (ix) Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of A. Murali & Co. (P.) Ltd. V. ACIT, reported in (2013) 357 ITR 580 (Madras). 18. The ld. CIT -DR for the revenue