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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

23. The next ground of appeal relates to deletion of disallowance made on account of contract cancellation charges amounting to Rs. 10,04,33,270. The identical issue has already been dealt with by us in ITA No. 27/Rjt/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13 and in the absence of any changed circumstances the same shall apply mutatis mutandis. Hence, this ground

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

23,110/- being the disallowance on account of investigation expenses paid by the bank. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the addition of Rs.67,10,325/- being the difference in the amount with reference to the TDS certificate and that claimed as job work income. 5. That on the facts

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

23,110/- being the disallowance on account of investigation expenses paid by the bank. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the addition of Rs.67,10,325/- being the difference in the amount with reference to the TDS certificate and that claimed as job work income. 5. That on the facts

MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallowed in view of the\nExplanation to the second proviso of section 24 of the Act which states\nthat -"Where the property has been acquired or constructed with\nborrowed capital, the interest, if any, payable on such capital borrowed\nfor the period prior to the previous year in which the property has been\nacquired or constructed shall be deducted under

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. SAURASHTRA CEMENT LTD.,, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

23,032/- paid on Differential Royalty on Basalt, disallowance of Excessive Depreciation claim on Plant & Machinery amounting to Rs.33,85,988/-, disallowance of expenditure incurred as Entertainment of Expenses amounting to Rs.72,054/-, disallowance of Contribution of PWD Road of Rs.52,34,500/-, disallowance out of Licence/Registration Fees amounting to Rs.11,34,064/-, disallowance under Section

SAURASHTA CEMENT LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

23,032/- paid on Differential Royalty on Basalt, disallowance of Excessive Depreciation claim on Plant & Machinery amounting to Rs.33,85,988/-, disallowance of expenditure incurred as Entertainment of Expenses amounting to Rs.72,054/-, disallowance of Contribution of PWD Road of Rs.52,34,500/-, disallowance out of Licence/Registration Fees amounting to Rs.11,34,064/-, disallowance under Section

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

section 37(1) of the Act. 20. With regard to his contention on the nature of services received by virtue of these expenses being established to the AO, he drew our attention to the facts noted by the DRP inits order as reproduced above vis-à-vis these expenses, and pointed out that the payment for management

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

section 37(1) of the Act. 20. With regard to his contention on the nature of services received by virtue of these expenses being established to the AO, he drew our attention to the facts noted by the DRP inits order as reproduced above vis-à-vis these expenses, and pointed out that the payment for management

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

section 37(1) of the Act. 20. With regard to his contention on the nature of services received by virtue of these expenses being established to the AO, he drew our attention to the facts noted by the DRP inits order as reproduced above vis-à-vis these expenses, and pointed out that the payment for management

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.376/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Circle-3(1), Vs. Gopalnaga, Opp. Andh Mahila Rajkot. Vikas Gruh, Rajkot.

section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rule as the assessee suo moto have made disallowances to the extent of exempt income. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A). Hence the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Page 12 of 14 Asstt. Year 2012-13 21. The last

LATE SMT. PRITI A. GANDHI L/R. SHRI ANILBHAI A. GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallowed in view of the\nExplanation to the second proviso of section 24 of the Act which states\nthat -"Where the property has been acquired or constructed with\nborrowed capital, the interest, if any, payable on such capital borrowed\nfor the period prior to the previous year in which the property has been\nacquired or constructed shall be deducted under

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

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 437/Rjt/2018 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Ahlstrom Munksjo Vs. D.C.I.T, Fibercomposites(India) Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham Circle, Mundra Sez Integrated Textile & Gandhidham. Apparel Park (Mitap), Plot No.07, Survey No.141, Mundra, Kutch-370421. Pan: Aagca9137M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, C.I.T Dr सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2023 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

10 AE without withholding tax deductible at source under the provision of section 195 of the Act. The AO found that same guarantee commission has been reimbursed by the Assessee in earlier year without deducting tax which has been disallowed under the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Hence the AO, following the order of the predecessor

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

23 Sirsa Ukalana – Budheal Road Project 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in holding that appellant was not a developer of infrastructure facility in respect of projects specified by him and listed in ground No. 2 above. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime

M/S BACKBONE PROJECTS LIMITED.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

23 Sirsa Ukalana – Budheal Road Project 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in holding that appellant was not a developer of infrastructure facility in respect of projects specified by him and listed in ground No. 2 above. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime

M/S BACKBONE PROJECTS LIMITED.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

23 Sirsa Ukalana – Budheal Road Project 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in holding that appellant was not a developer of infrastructure facility in respect of projects specified by him and listed in ground No. 2 above. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

23 Sirsa Ukalana – Budheal Road Project 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in holding that appellant was not a developer of infrastructure facility in respect of projects specified by him and listed in ground No. 2 above. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime

M/S CHANDRAKANT H. KAKKAD,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

23,392/- ought to have been confirmed. The addition needs deletion. 9. Without prejudice, the assessment made is bad in law and deserves annulment. 10. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering that no reasonable opportunity has been given by the Ld. A.O. while completing assessment while passing assessment order. The same needs annulment. 11. Without

BATAVA DEVLI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,BATAVA DEVLI, TAL. KUNLAVA, DIST. AMRELI. vs. THE ADIT, (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

23,470/- 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co-operative society, who filed return of income on 27-11-2020 declaring total income of " " Nil and claimed deduction of 3,99,585/-under section 80P of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee received intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act making adjustment