M/S. D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

set off ITA Nos.27/RJT/2016& 360,315/Rjt/2015 A.Y.2011-12,2012-13 against the profit generated from regular business and upon holding the contract cancellation charges of Rs. 2,80,05,500/- as speculation loss he ultimately disallowed the same. In appeal the same is allowed and addition was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before

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

set off ITA Nos.27/RJT/2016& 360,315/Rjt/2015 A.Y.2011-12,2012-13 against the profit generated from regular business and upon holding the contract cancellation charges of Rs. 2,80,05,500/- as speculation loss he ultimately disallowed the same. In appeal the same is allowed and addition was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before

P P CORPORATION,RAJKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

loss set-off/adjusted, advance tax paid, self-\nassessment tax paid, TDS deducted, total tax paid, refund claimed for the current

ASHOKKUMAR PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,PORBANDAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appear of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.83/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Ashokkumar Projects India P. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Manek Centre, P.N. Cholera Arcade, M.G. Road Opposite, Bhaveshwar Mahadev Marg, Jamnagar - 361008 Temple, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamca5891Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

setting-aside the orderpassed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 even when the assessment order was passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Act, after conducting necessary enquiries and after due application of mind. 3.Hon’ble Pr. CIT, Jamnagar has erred in law and in facts by passing

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

set- aside\nthe assessment order and giving direction to the assessing officer to revise the\nassessment order.\n2.Learned PCIT Jamnagar erred in law as well facts by not giving effective\nopportunity of being heard, and passed order which is against the law and principle\nof natural justice.\nAppellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeals

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

loss of revenue, as the assessee paid the taxes on the difference in valuation of business stock. Since the stock pertains to the business, hence no any tax liability may be imposed on the assessee under section 115BBE of the Act. 16.About TDS on contractor payment, the assessee submitted before the ld. PCIT thatTDS on contractor payment, needs

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

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

loss of revenue, as the assessee paid the taxes on the difference in valuation of business stock. Since the stock pertains to the business, hence no any tax liability may be imposed on the assessee under section 115BBE of the Act. 16.About TDS on contractor payment, the assessee submitted before the ld. PCIT thatTDS on contractor payment, needs

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. Ground No. 1 relates to addition of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- made on account of export sale commission under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as no TDS was made. 4. The assessee engaged in the business of Trading of Agricultural Products and exporting the same, following

THE DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT MEENABEN H LAKHANI, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. Ground No. 1 relates to addition of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- made on account of export sale commission under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as no TDS was made. 4. The assessee engaged in the business of Trading of Agricultural Products and exporting the same, following

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (2), RAJKOT vs. SHRI NARENDRA NANJIBHAI DAVDA, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. Ground No. 1 relates to addition of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- made on account of export sale commission under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as no TDS was made. 4. The assessee engaged in the business of Trading of Agricultural Products and exporting the same, following

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. DRB COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. Ground No. 1 relates to addition of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- made on account of export sale commission under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as no TDS was made. 4. The assessee engaged in the business of Trading of Agricultural Products and exporting the same, following

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. D.M.L. WORLD TRADE PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. Ground No. 1 relates to addition of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- made on account of export sale commission under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as no TDS was made. 4. The assessee engaged in the business of Trading of Agricultural Products and exporting the same, following

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. DRB COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. Ground No. 1 relates to addition of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- made on account of export sale commission under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as no TDS was made. 4. The assessee engaged in the business of Trading of Agricultural Products and exporting the same, following

AMARDEEP EXPORTS,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 1(3), JNR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

set off of brought forward losses / Amardeep Exports unabsorbed depreciation relating to assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 against total income assessed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the learned CIT(A)-NFAC is held

THE ITO, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S TERAPANTH FOODS LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06

set off of brought forward losses of A.Ys. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 24.08.2006. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. In response to the statutory notice

FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALLIED INDS.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE GANDHIDHAM,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

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

TDS and debited under the head Interest expenses should not be disallowed. Total income of the assessee assessed as under: Page 4 of 22 Friends Salt Works and Ltd. 5. That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of AO dated 17.02.2023 before the Ld.CIT (A) and the addition made by AO was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). with

FRIENDS SALT WORKS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES,GANDHIDHAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

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

TDS and debited under the head Interest expenses should not be disallowed. Total income of the assessee assessed as under: Page 4 of 22 Friends Salt Works and Ltd. 5. That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of AO dated 17.02.2023 before the Ld.CIT (A) and the addition made by AO was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). with

VINODBHAI SUNDERJIBHAI KANSAGARA,DIST. MORBI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, MORBI, INCOME-TAX OFFICE,

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

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

loss as speculative and not allowing set of disallowance is bad in law and the same may kindly be allowed alternatively. 4. Your Honour's appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter, or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal. Total tax effect (see note below) 9,00,569/- 3. The brief