Showing 40 of 357 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
- The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Morbi Circle… vs M/S Italica Floor Tiles Pvt. Ltd., Morbi
ITA 475/RJT/2015[2006-07]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2019AY 2006-07Dismissed
The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis of the penalty were reversed, the penalty could not survive. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
- The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Morbi Circle… vs M/S Italica Floor Tiles Pvt. Ltd., Morbi
ITA 476/RJT/2015[2007-08]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2019AY 2007-08
- The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Morbi Circle… vs M/S Vrundavan Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Wankaner
ITA 480/RJT/2015[2008-09]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2019AY 2008-09
- Heena Mukesh Varnava, Jamnagar vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Jamnagar
ITA 497/RJT/2012[2008-09]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2019AY 2008-09Remanded
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have considered the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, as per the principles of natural justice. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal.
- The Dharangadhra People'S Co. Op. Bank… vs The Dy. Commr. Income Tax, Surendranagar…
ITA 131/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2019AY 2013-14
- The Dharangadhra People'S Co. Op. Bank… vs The Dy. Commr. Income Tax, Surendranagar…
ITA 130/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2019AY 2012-13Allowed
The Tribunal held that the claim for brought forward losses from earlier assessment years (AY 2005-06 and 2006-07) could not be denied in the current assessment year, as the revenue had not challenged these claims in previous assessments. For AY 2013-14, the issue of set-off of brought forward losses was directed to be adjudicated by the AO considering the outcome of the appeal for AY 2012-13.
- Shri Shailesh Gopalbhai Akbari… vs The Addl. Commr. Income Tax, Range-2…
ITA 666/RJT/2014[2010-11]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11
- Shri Solanki Amrutlal Rudabhai… vs The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-2…
ITA 724/RJT/2014[2010-11]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2019AY 2010-11
- Rajeshbhai Chimanbhai Javia, Rajkot-Gujarat vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4)…
ITA 312/RJT/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed
The Tribunal held that if the recipient of commission income has paid taxes, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not attracted, citing a Delhi High Court decision. For car expenses, since the assessee made no submissions, the order of the authorities below was upheld.
- Meena Agency Ltd., Jamnagar vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 491/RJT/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2019AY 2009-10
- Madhav Sharafi Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1)…
ITA 48/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2019AY 2013-14
- Bhavesh K. Kothari, Rajkot-Gujarat vs The Addl. Commmr. Income Tax, Range-4…
ITA 559/RJT/2015[2005-06]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2019AY 2005-06
- Smt.Amita Ankitkumar Mansuria, Upleta vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(3), Rajkot
ITA 298/RJT/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2019AY 2011-12
- Vipulkumar Hemantlal Popat, Upleta… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4)…
ITA 321/RJT/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2019AY 2009-10Remanded
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not claim the benefit of Section 194C(6) and that the conditions for Section 194C(5) were not met. However, it held that if the recipients had paid taxes, there would be no disallowance, citing a Delhi High Court decision on the retrospective application of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia).
- Manubhai Prabhudas Nimavat, Wankaner… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)…
ITA 276/RJT/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2019AY 2009-10
- Bhavesh K. Kothari, Rajkot-Gujarat vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)…
ITA 50/RJT/2014[2005-06]Status: Disposed10 Dec 2019AY 2005-06Partly Allowed
The ITAT dismissed the assessee's grounds related to conveyance allowance and incentive bonus, stating that the onus was on the assessee to provide evidence and that incentive bonus is part of salary with no provision for deduction. The appeal was partly allowed.
- Uma Cotton & Oil Industries, Rajkot-Gujarat vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 13/RJT/2013[2008-09]Status: Disposed10 Dec 2019AY 2008-09Partly Allowed
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deductions for partner remuneration/interest and unabsorbed depreciation against the income declared under the head 'other sources'. This is based on the principle that such income, when declared, should be treated as business income and allowed corresponding expenses.
- Shri Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhuj
ITA 1063/RJT/2009[2002-03]Status: Disposed10 Dec 2019AY 2002-03Partly Allowed
The Tribunal held that persons acquitted by the CESTAT cannot be considered members of the AOP. It also ruled that while the value of diverted goods is taxable, the assessee is entitled to a deduction for expenses incurred, including the Rs. 10 lakhs paid to compensate for import duty.
- Hareshkumar L. Udeshi, Rajkot-Gujarat vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4)…
ITA 95/RJT/2014[2008-09]Status: Disposed10 Dec 2019AY 2008-09Partly Allowed
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding fixed conveyance allowance and incentive bonus, citing lack of evidence and the nature of incentive bonus as salary. The appeal regarding household expenses was partly allowed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found no infirmity in that order.
- Shri Gujarati Machhu Kathia Darji Gnati… vs Income Tax Officer, (Exemption)-1, Rajkot
ITA 413/RJT/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15
- M/S Kishor Project Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs The Dy. Commr. Income Tax, Circle-1…
ITA 528/RJT/2014[2007-08]Status: Disposed29 Nov 2019AY 2007-08Dismissed
The tribunal, citing various High Court and ITAT decisions, held that an appeal must be effectively pursued. Since the assessee failed to appear or prosecute the appeal, it was dismissed for non-prosecution.
- The ITO, Ward-1 (1) (4), Rajkot-Gujarat vs Shri Mahendrabhai D. Zalavadia…
ITA 610/RJT/2015[2007-08]Status: Disposed29 Nov 2019AY 2007-08Dismissed
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on capital gains, finding that Section 45(3) was applicable and the firm recorded no capital gain. Regarding remuneration and interest, the Tribunal agreed that these were not mandatory payments as per the partnership deed and were not received by the assessee, thus not taxable.
- Shri Ghanshyambhai Gordhanbhai Jaksania… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 14/RJT/2014[2007-08]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2007-08
- M/S. Winsun Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., Morbi vs The Pr. CIT-3, Rajkot
ITA 393/RJT/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2015-16Remanded
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conducted sufficient inquiry into the genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for thorough investigation.
- Shri Ghanshyambhai Gordhanbhai Jaksania… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 15/RJT/2014[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2010-11
- M/S. Orfina Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., Morbi vs The Pr. CIT-3, Rajkot
ITA 397/RJT/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2015-16Remanded
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conducted sufficient inquiry into the genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for thorough investigation.
- Shri Kishor Gordhanbhai Jaksania… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 17/RJT/2014[2006-07]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2006-07Partly Allowed
The Tribunal dismissed appeals related to penalty and interest as premature or consequential. For the quantum additions, the Tribunal partly allowed some appeals, dismissed one, and allowed others for statistical purposes, indicating a mixed outcome for the various assessment years and assessees.
- Shri Ghanshyambhai Gordhanbhai Jaksania… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 13/RJT/2014[2006-07]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2006-07Partly Allowed
The Tribunal dismissed appeals related to penalty and interest as premature or consequential. For the quantum additions, the Tribunal partly allowed some appeals, dismissed one, and allowed others for statistical purposes, indicating a mixed outcome for the various assessment years and assessees.
- Shri Ghanshyambhai Gordhanbhai Jaksania… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 16/RJT/2014[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2011-12
- Shri Dineshbhai Gordhanbhai Jaksania… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 174/RJT/2014[2005-06]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2005-06
- Shri Sanjaybhai Gordhanbhai Jaksania… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 175/RJT/2014[2007-08]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2007-08Partly Allowed
The Tribunal dismissed appeals related to penalty and interest as premature or consequential. For the quantum additions, the Tribunal partly allowed some appeals, dismissed one, and allowed others for statistical purposes, indicating a mixed outcome for the various assessment years and assessees.
- Hemjay Construction Co. P. Ltd., Jamnagar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Jamnagar
ITA 401/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2012-13
- Shri Kishor Gordhanbhai Jaksania… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 20/RJT/2014[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2011-12
- Shri Sanjaybhai Gordhanbhai Jaksania… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 176/RJT/2014[2008-09]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2008-09
- Shri Kishor Gordhanbhai Jaksania… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 18/RJT/2014[2007-08]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2007-08
- M/S. Rex Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., Morbi vs The Pr. CIT-3, Rajkot
ITA 394/RJT/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2015-16Remanded
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conducted sufficient inquiry into the genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for thorough investigation.
- M/S. Wintop Vitrified Pvt. Ltd., Morbi vs The Pr. CIT-3, Rajkot
ITA 398/RJT/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2015-16Remanded
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conducted sufficient inquiry into the genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for thorough investigation.
- Shri Kishor Gordhanbhai Jaksania… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 19/RJT/2014[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2010-11
- Shri Sanjaybhai G. Jaksania, Rajkot-Gujarat vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 483/RJT/2014[2006-07]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2006-07
- Shri Dineshbhai G. Jaksania, Rajkot-Gujarat vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 484/RJT/2014[2006-07]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2006-07
