BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIA,JETPUR vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, 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. 156/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya Vs. Ito, Wd 1(2)(1), Rajkot Plot No. 82 Satyam Park, Amarnagar Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Jetpur,(Rajkot-Gujarat) -360370 Road, Rajkot 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agnps7407C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

TDS amounting to Rs. 18,96,225/-, which substantiates that the corresponding income is solely attributable to him. Furthermore, as observed from the AO's order, the assessee had initially distributed the interest income on compensation among other individuals and subsequently received the same back as a gift. In view of these facts, the AO has rightly added the entire

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

TDS certificate and that claimed as job work income. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. It is therefore prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. That

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

TDS certificate and that claimed as job work income. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. It is therefore prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. That

ITO WARD 3(1)(4), RAJKOT-STATION- AMRELI, AMRELI, GUJARAT vs. AVADH AGRI EXPORTS, AMRELI, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

iv) Modem Insulator LTD. 30 CCH 0193 (Jaipur), (v) Transformers And Electricals Kerala Ltd. 66 SOT 0110 (Cochin), (vi) CLSA Limited 160 TTJ 0001 (Mumbai). Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the assessing Page 11 of 20 ITA No.816/Rjt/2025 -AY 2012-13 ITO vs. Avadh Agri Exports officer are distinguishable to the facts of the present case. Therefore

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, JUNAGADH vs. M/S KESHODWALA FOODS., VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1133/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08) D.C.I.T, बनाम/ M/S Keshodwala Foods, Circle-1, 305-G.I.D.C. Industrial Vs. Junagadh. Estate, Somnath Road, Veraval. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfk6651Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ranjit Singh Cit. D.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 16/06/2010, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 08/12/2009 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2007- 08. A.Y. 2007-08 The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

iv. The authorized representative of M/s Cham trading organization has accepted to have received the payment towards the plant higher charges as per the agreement. Thus, the statement suggests that there was the agreement between the assessee and M/s Cham trading organization. Furthermore, there was the clear direction by M/s Cham trading organization to make the payment to its partner

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)

17. Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR), for the Revenue, has vehemently argued that assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, has not established, the availability of interest free funds, and assessee has not proved the commercial expediency. The learned DR for the revenue, relied on various decisions listed by the assessing officer, in his assessment order and submitted that

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)

17. Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR), for the Revenue, has vehemently argued that assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, has not established, the availability of interest free funds, and assessee has not proved the commercial expediency. The learned DR for the revenue, relied on various decisions listed by the assessing officer, in his assessment order and submitted that

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)

17. Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR), for the Revenue, has vehemently argued that assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, has not established, the availability of interest free funds, and assessee has not proved the commercial expediency. The learned DR for the revenue, relied on various decisions listed by the assessing officer, in his assessment order and submitted that

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)

17. Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR), for the Revenue, has vehemently argued that assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, has not established, the availability of interest free funds, and assessee has not proved the commercial expediency. The learned DR for the revenue, relied on various decisions listed by the assessing officer, in his assessment order and submitted that

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)

17. Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR), for the Revenue, has vehemently argued that assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, has not established, the availability of interest free funds, and assessee has not proved the commercial expediency. The learned DR for the revenue, relied on various decisions listed by the assessing officer, in his assessment order and submitted that

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

17 required or not is a matter of business prudence. In this regard, he drew our attention to the following decisions: i) Atherton Vs. British Insulated & Helsby Cables Ltd., (1925) 10 TC 155; ii) Eastern Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC) iii) CIT Vs. Microsoft Corporation of India P.Ltd., (2008) 220 CTR 410 (Delhi); iv) Ravi Marketing

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

17 required or not is a matter of business prudence. In this regard, he drew our attention to the following decisions: i) Atherton Vs. British Insulated & Helsby Cables Ltd., (1925) 10 TC 155; ii) Eastern Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC) iii) CIT Vs. Microsoft Corporation of India P.Ltd., (2008) 220 CTR 410 (Delhi); iv) Ravi Marketing

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

17 required or not is a matter of business prudence. In this regard, he drew our attention to the following decisions: i) Atherton Vs. British Insulated & Helsby Cables Ltd., (1925) 10 TC 155; ii) Eastern Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC) iii) CIT Vs. Microsoft Corporation of India P.Ltd., (2008) 220 CTR 410 (Delhi); iv) Ravi Marketing

SHRI NIRMAL RAJENDRA JAGETIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO (TDS-3), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

iv) United Metals v ITO, 137 taxmann.com 115 (dated 10.12.2021); (v) Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd. v Union of India, 134 taxmann.com 111 (dated 22.10.2021); 8.2.3 In all these cases, the Kerala High Court has held that levy of late fee u/s 234E for the period prior to 01.06.2015 is invalid and that the same provision 234E r.w.s 200A

M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

TDS amounting to Rs. 57,298/-. (4). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition amounting to Rs. 25,35,850/- on account of difference in receipts as per books of accounts and form 26AS. (5). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 30,50,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits

ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJARAT vs. DCIT-ACIT CENT-2 RKT, RAJKOT

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

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

2) In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,47,17,000/- made on account of unaccounted cash receipts. 3) In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in considering

ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, GANDHIHDAM, GANDHIDHAM, GUJARAT

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

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

2) In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,47,17,000/- made on account of unaccounted cash receipts. 3) In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in considering

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 , RAJKOT vs. ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING(INDIA) PVT.LTD. (SWISS SINGAPORE INDIA PVT. LTD.), GANDHIDHAM

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

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

2) In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,47,17,000/- made on account of unaccounted cash receipts. 3) In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in considering

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT vs. ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SWISS SINGAPORE INDIA PVT. LTD., GANDHIDHAM

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

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

2) In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,47,17,000/- made on account of unaccounted cash receipts. 3) In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in considering