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

68", "Section 115BBE", "Section 142(1)", "Section 32"], "issues": "Whether the assessment order dated 30.09.2019 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, warranting revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning issues of depreciation

M/S. EMBOZA GRANITO PVT. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 240/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-2017

section 68 of the Act in respect of equity share capital of Rs.18.50 Crores (2) claim of depreciation of Rs.6.25

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), , RAJKOT vs. SYMBOSA GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED, WANKANER

68 of the Act, and\nthis is a second inning before us. Learned DR for the revenue, argued that during\nthe assessment proceedings, the assessing officer, did not get time to examine\nthe documents and evidences submitted by the assessee, therefore, 3rd innings\nshould be given to the assessing officer, and hence, this matter should be\nremitted back

M/S. SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

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

68,00,829/- as per normal provisions and income of Rs. 98,46,820/- as per the provisions of section 115JB of Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, on 09.03.2018, assessee Company filed revised ITR declaring total loss of (-) Rs. 13,97,40,413/- The case was selected through 'CASS' for Scrutiny and assessment u/s 143(3) was completed

THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S SRV METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

68 of Rs.2,00,00,000/- on account of addition Assessment Year: 2009-10 Page 4 of 6 to share capital and share premium, the assessee did not produce details to establish the genuineness of the same. As regards to ground no.8 related to addition of Rs.1,16,328/-, here also the assessee did not produce the details to establish

GOJIYA BHIKHUBHAI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

depreciation.\nHowever, considering the nature of these expenses, as these expenses will give\nenduring benefit to the assessee, therefore, these are capital in nature, therefore\nassessing officer has failed to examine the nature of these expenditure, hence\norder passed by the assessing officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the\ninterest of the revenue.\n26.We have carefully considered

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

depreciation. However, considering the nature of these expenses, as these expenses will give enduring benefit to the assessee, therefore, these are capital in nature, therefore assessing officer has failed to examine the nature of these expenditure, hence GojijyaBhikhubhai and Others ITA No.609, 610 and 612/RJT/2024 (AY :2018-19) 14 order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous as well

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

depreciation. However, considering the nature of these expenses, as these expenses will give enduring benefit to the assessee, therefore, these are capital in nature, therefore assessing officer has failed to examine the nature of these expenditure, hence GojijyaBhikhubhai and Others ITA No.609, 610 and 612/RJT/2024 (AY :2018-19) 14 order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous as well

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:

68,606.00 under the provisions of section 80-IA of the Act 5. However, the AO found that the assessee has been carried out its business activities from the assessment year 1994-95 as evident from the depreciation

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MORBI vs. M/S. KISHAN PLUS MINARALS, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue (In ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.02/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Cent.Cir.2 M/S.Kishan Plus Minerals बनाम Rajkot. Jetpar Road, Nr. Pavadiyali Temple, Jasmatgadh Vs. Morbi. Pan : Aaqfk4689P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Counsel राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2025 (Originally Heard Refixed On 05.06.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini:

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 22.07.2021, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 26.03.2021. ACIT Vs. Kishan Plus Minerals ITA No.124/RJT/2021 with Co.02 (AY : 2019-20) 2 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue

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

68, 69A, 69B & 69C fall under Chapter VI. 12 8. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that addition under section 69 has to be separately made following the decision of Hon. Gujarat High Court in Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan vs. CIT (supra) and no set off against business loss has to be allowed. 9. We have considered the rival

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 68 of the Act. ITA Nos.760 & 761/Rjt/2010 And CO No.32 & 33/Rjt/2010 M/s. Pavan Cosnt. Co. A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2006-07 6.1 The ld DR vehemently supported the order of AO. 7. On the other hand the ld. AR before us submitted that the amount from M/s. Sutreja & Co. was received by the assessee through banking channel. The amount

SALIM ABDULLAH RATHOD,MUNDRA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 277/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Salim Abdullah Rathod, Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 6316, Swami Vivekanand Nagar New Vs. Gandhidham Kutch, Gujarat Swaminarayan Temple Road Bhutda 370465 Wadi, Gujarat, 370465 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adnpp3110E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68,510/- 1) Disallowance of depreciation claim @30% Rs.18,41,483/- Total income assessed u/s. 143(3) Rs. 56,09,993/- Round off to Rs. 56,09,990/- 6. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee came in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) That the Ld.CIT(A) has decided the appeal with following observation: “6.9. Thus, considering

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

Depreciation Related to Mfg. 67 68 087 77 55 982 1 73 60 002 1 93 45 151 (Increase )/Decrease in stock Opening stock By product 1 28 206 2 86 589 Work in process 5 86 46 481 6 63 78 651 Finished goods 1 11 79 254 77 63 967 Total

PALLAV,JAMNAGAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2, JAMNAGAR

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

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

68 of the Act. 7.Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. 8. Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that reasons recorded by the assessing officer for reopening of assessment are bad in law and there is no application of mind by the assessing officer. Therefore, the re- assessment proceeding

SHRI RAJESH KARSHANBHAI VEKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WD-2(1)(5), RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.173/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya, Income Tax Officer, Ward- Plot No. 266, Kuvadva Gidc, Opp. 2,(1)(5), Rajkot, Aayakar Vs. Riddhi Agro Industries, Kuvadva, Bhavan, Race Course Ring Rajkot-360003 Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acxpp9434A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08 /01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha Jm; Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against Order Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi /Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) , Vide Order Dated 25.012024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ For Short) Dated 26.03.2015 U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Hereunder Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 2. The Id. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As To The "Cit(A)"] Erred On Facts As Also In Law Confirming Addition Of Rs.86,68,718/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Alleged Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act On The Alleged Ground That The Appellant Failed To Prove Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of Various Parties From Whom Unsecured Loan Of Rs.86,68,718/-Were Ita No. 173-Rjt-2024 Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya

68,718/-were ITA NO. 173-RJT-2024 SHRI RAJESH KARSHANBHAI VEKARIYA received. The addition confirmed is unjustified and uncalled for, which deserves to be deleted and may kindly be deleted. 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law confirming disallowance of depreciation on motor car of Rs.76,595/- made by the AO on the alleged

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.

68,93,336/- should be disallowed on account of excess claim of deduction for creating special reserve u/s 36(1)(viii) and should be added to total income of assessee bank.” 5. Ld. Pr. CIT thereafter went on to hold the assessment order as erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue for the Assessing Officer having not examined the claim

ANUP A. SHAH,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 106/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2005-2006 वष"

68 has also held that where the assessment of the assessee was completed on estimated basis penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not imposable with respect to the additions made on such estimate by the Assessing Officer. Thus in view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that no penalty under section