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

293/-, after\nclaiming depreciation amounting to Rs.4,28,20,442/-, which was on account of\nunabsorbed depreciation. It was noticed by the learned PCIT that the\ncommercial production has commenced after 01/10/2016. In the chart for\ndepreciation, as per Income tax Act, it was found that depreciation had been\nclaimed in respect of newly added assets shown for Rs.73

M/S. SAVALIA COTTON GINNING & PROCESSING PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.12/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 Savalia Cotton Ginning & Pressing Pr. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax-1, Plot No.242, Rajkot. Opp. 66 Kva Power Station, Shaper(Veraval) Dist. Rajkot.

68 of the Act. Accordingly, the PCIT proposed to hold the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 9th December 2018 as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue by issuing notice under section 263 of the Act dated 9th November 2020. 3.3 The assessee in response to such show cause notice

PARSHWA PRINTPACK PVT. LTD.,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act. Hence, the AO disallowed the same and added to total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT-A. 7. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the addition has been solely made on the basis of the statements of the 5 parties out of 8 parties

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act. Hence, the AO disallowed the same and added to total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT-A. 7. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the addition has been solely made on the basis of the statements of the 5 parties out of 8 parties

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act. Hence, the AO disallowed the same and added to total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT-A. 7. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the addition has been solely made on the basis of the statements of the 5 parties out of 8 parties

SHRI TULSHIBHAI POLABHAI SAKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 93/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year:2015-16 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Tulsibhai Polabhai Sakariya Vs. The Pr. C.I.T, 2-Bombay Housing Society, Rajkot-1, Meghdhara, University Road, Rajkot. Opp. G. K. Dholakiya, Rajkot

68 of the paper book where the notice under section 142(1) of the Act and reply of assessee along with documentary evidences were placed. Thus, the learned AR contended that the AO after considering the reply of the assessee along with evidences has taken a view, therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment order is erroneous

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S. SHIVABYAY PROJECT PVT. LTD. , GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

293/- out of total addition of Rs. 1,95,92,793/- made on account of disallowance of expenses claimed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On going through the facts of the assessee’s case and judicial precedents on the subject, it is a well settled law that once income has been computed by applying the gross profit ratio

M/S. SHIVABYAY PROJECT PVT. LTD. ,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

293/- out of total addition of Rs. 1,95,92,793/- made on account of disallowance of expenses claimed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On going through the facts of the assessee’s case and judicial precedents on the subject, it is a well settled law that once income has been computed by applying the gross profit ratio

BHIKHALAL PRAHALADRAI AGARWAL HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

68, as alleged unexplained cash credit on account of sale of shares. 13. We note that the assessee contests the validity of reopening as well as the validity of the reassessment order passed by the A.O. under the provisions of section 147 of the Act. The reasons of reopening are reproduced by the AO on Page

BHIKHALAL PRAHLADRAI AGARWAL HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

68, as alleged unexplained cash credit on account of sale of shares. 13. We note that the assessee contests the validity of reopening as well as the validity of the reassessment order passed by the A.O. under the provisions of section 147 of the Act. The reasons of reopening are reproduced by the AO on Page

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI NAVDA MAHILA DOODH UTPADAK SAHKARI MANDLI LIMITED, VANTHALI JUNAGADH GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 604/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Shri Navda Mahila Doodh Utpadak Bhutnath Chambers College Sahkari Mandali Limited, Road, Junagadh, Co. Popatbhai P Bharai, At. Navda, Tal. Vs. Gujarat-362001 Vanthali, Junagadh, Gujarat – 362610 Pan/Gir No.: Aatas6002N (Assessee) (Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 617/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Shri Navda Mahila Doodh Utpadak Income Tax Officer, Bhutnath Chambers College Sahkari Mandali Limited, Co. Popatbhai P Bharai, At. Navda, Tal. Road, Junagadh, Vs. Vanthali, Junagadh, Gujarat - 362610 Gujarat-362001 Pan/Gir No.: Aatas6002N (Assessee) (Respondent)

section, it is for us to decide which is the proper provision of the law under which such an order should have been made.” Therefore, we reject the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee. 13. Now coming to the merits of the case, we find that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the return

SHRI NAVDA MAHILA DOODH UTPADAK SAHKARI MANDLI LIMITED,JUNAGADH vs. THE ITO WARD-1, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 604/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Shri Navda Mahila Doodh Utpadak Bhutnath Chambers College Sahkari Mandali Limited, Road, Junagadh, Co. Popatbhai P Bharai, At. Navda, Tal. Vs. Gujarat-362001 Vanthali, Junagadh, Gujarat – 362610 Pan/Gir No.: Aatas6002N (Assessee) (Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 617/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Shri Navda Mahila Doodh Utpadak Income Tax Officer, Bhutnath Chambers College Sahkari Mandali Limited, Co. Popatbhai P Bharai, At. Navda, Tal. Road, Junagadh, Vs. Vanthali, Junagadh, Gujarat - 362610 Gujarat-362001 Pan/Gir No.: Aatas6002N (Assessee) (Respondent)

section, it is for us to decide which is the proper provision of the law under which such an order should have been made.” Therefore, we reject the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee. 13. Now coming to the merits of the case, we find that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the return