THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

90,30,159/- by invoking the provision of Sec. 14 A r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This particular disallowance was made on the contemplation that the appellant may receive income not chargeable to tax from the investment of Rs. 63,25,000/- as appearing in the balance sheet. However, the same was deleted by the First Appellate

BAN LABS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.202/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ban Labs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ban House, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Income Tax-1, Nagar, Gondal Road (South), Rajkot Rajkot-360004 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacb8999C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 14A r.w.r. 8D, the disallowance u/s 14A comes out to be Rs.57,90,745/-(1% of Rs. 57,90

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 437/Rjt/2018 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Ahlstrom Munksjo Vs. D.C.I.T, Fibercomposites(India) Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham Circle, Mundra Sez Integrated Textile & Gandhidham. Apparel Park (Mitap), Plot No.07, Survey No.141, Mundra, Kutch-370421. Pan: Aagca9137M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, C.I.T Dr सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2023 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The appellant prays that the addition made by the Learned AO in relation to the disallowance of reimbursement of bank guarantee commission be deleted. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think

SHRI DHORAJI NAGRIK SHARAFI AND GRAHAK SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,DHORAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2)(1), RAJKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.478/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Shri Dhoraji Nagrik Sharafi & Vs. Income Tax Officer Grahak Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Ward – 1(2)(1), C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St Rajkot. Floor, Dr. Radha – Krishnan Road, Opp. Rajkumar College, Rajkot- 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaad7775Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee, under section 80P of the Act. Moreover, the assessee has not availed the benefit of the provisions of section 119(2) (b) of the Income tax Act, to file the petition for condonation of delay before the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, who may condone the delay in filing the appeal, therefore

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)

disallowance is not justifiable. 7. In view of the grounds mentioned as above your Appellant requests your Honour to appreciate the fact that re-opening of the assessment as above is completely erroneous and disregard with the Act, and order under section 263 is required to be quashed. 8. Your Honor's appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter

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

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

disallowed in view of provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Act as pointed out in the reasons for reopening. Ad-hoc business income of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been offered additionally. A copy of reason recorded for reopening has been provided to the assessee-firm Vides letter dated 17/12/2021. Further, the objection raised against initiation of proceedings

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

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

disallowed in view of provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Act as pointed out in the reasons for reopening. Ad-hoc business income of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been offered additionally. A copy of reason recorded for reopening has been provided to the assessee-firm Vides letter dated 17/12/2021. Further, the objection raised against initiation of proceedings

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

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

disallowed in view of provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Act as pointed out in the reasons for reopening. Ad-hoc business income of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been offered additionally. A copy of reason recorded for reopening has been provided to the assessee-firm Vides letter dated 17/12/2021. Further, the objection raised against initiation of proceedings

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

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

disallowed in view of provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Act as pointed out in the reasons for reopening. Ad-hoc business income of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been offered additionally. A copy of reason recorded for reopening has been provided to the assessee-firm Vides letter dated 17/12/2021. Further, the objection raised against initiation of proceedings

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

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

disallowed in view of provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Act as pointed out in the reasons for reopening. Ad-hoc business income of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been offered additionally. A copy of reason recorded for reopening has been provided to the assessee-firm Vides letter dated 17/12/2021. Further, the objection raised against initiation of proceedings

SHRI ANKURBHAI DHANJIBHAI KHATARIYA,ANJAR-KUTCH vs. THE ITO-WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

90, Ambapar, Ward-1, Anjar-Kutch, Gujarat-370110 Gandhidham-Kutch [PAN No. DZKPK0483B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement 21.04.2023 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:- The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.09.2021 passed

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallowance of claim of\nRs.4,90,00,000/- by way of set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation.\n[This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19]\n4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of\nassessee and revenue, as follows.\n5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready\nreference.\n“1.Ground

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallowance of claim of\nRs.4,90,00,000/- by way of set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation.\n[This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19]\n4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of\nassessee and revenue, as follows.\n5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready\nreference.\n“1.Ground

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallowance of claim of\nRs.4,90,00,000/- by way of set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation.\n[This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19]\n4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of\nassessee and revenue, as follows.\n5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready\nreference.\n“1.Ground

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

disallowance of claim of\nRs.4,90,00,000/- by way of set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation.\n[This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19]\n4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of\nassessee and revenue, as follows.\n5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready\nreference.\n“1.Ground

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

disallowance of claim of\nRs.4,90,00,000/- by way of set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation.\n[This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19]\n4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of\nassessee and revenue, as follows.\n5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready\nreference.\n“1.Ground

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT., RAJKOT

disallowance of claim of\nRs.4,90,00,000/- by way of set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation.\n[This is ground No.6 in ITA N0.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19]\n4. Now we shall take above, summarised and concise ground of appeals, of\nassessee and revenue, as follows.\n5. The summarised and concise ground No.1, is reproduced below for ready\nreference.\n\"1.Ground

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, , GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH vs. M/S. RIDDHI SIDDHI JEWELLERS, GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue isdismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-2 Vs. M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers Gandhidham. Shop No.1, Plot No.68 Bba (Sough) Gandhidham-Kutch. 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2023

Section 115BBE. 8.7 There is no dispute that appellant is in the business of trading in diamond and gold jewellary and survey was conducted on the appellant’s business premises i.e. the shop of the appellant. Such trading business of the appellant obviously have the stock in trade in the form of bullion & gold ornaments. There is no dispute that