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

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 of appeal preferred by the Revenue is also dismissed. ITA No. 315/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2011-12(Assessee’s Appeal):- 24. The sole

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

10,17,075/-only. As per the assessee, the amount of advances was given to various parties in the course of the business. Accordingly, it was claimed as a deduction under section 37(1) or 28 of the Act. However, the AO rejected the claim of the assessee by observing that there was no evidence that the advances were given

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

10,17,075/-only. As per the assessee, the amount of advances was given to various parties in the course of the business. Accordingly, it was claimed as a deduction under section 37(1) or 28 of the Act. However, the AO rejected the claim of the assessee by observing that there was no evidence that the advances were given

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

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 P.Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 519 (Cal); v) Sassoon J. David & Co. P.Ltd. Vs. CIT (1979) 1 taxman 485 (SC); vi) Jamna Auto industries Vs. CIT, (2008) 167 TAXMAN

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

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 P.Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 519 (Cal); v) Sassoon J. David & Co. P.Ltd. Vs. CIT (1979) 1 taxman 485 (SC); vi) Jamna Auto industries Vs. CIT, (2008) 167 TAXMAN

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

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 P.Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 519 (Cal); v) Sassoon J. David & Co. P.Ltd. Vs. CIT (1979) 1 taxman 485 (SC); vi) Jamna Auto industries Vs. CIT, (2008) 167 TAXMAN

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.

10. The assessee in the year under consideration has amortized the premium paid by it on acquisition of the Government Securities. As per the AO such amortization of premium expenses represent the capital expenditure. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the sum of Rs.68,31,402/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 11. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal

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

10. The Ld. AR submitted that this addition was made on the basis of general disclosure note in Audit Report for the information of the readers. Money raised for capital structure of the company and the same was not revenue nature. The Ld. AR submitted that surrender of right in redemption of OCCPS is capital in nature. It does

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

10. The Ld. AR submitted that this addition was made on the basis of general disclosure note in Audit Report for the information of the readers. Money raised for capital structure of the company and the same was not revenue nature. The Ld. AR submitted that surrender of right in redemption of OCCPS is capital in nature. It does

THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S JAGJIT BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.137/Rjt/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13) I.T.O, बनाम/ M/S Jagjit Builders & Ward-2(1), Developers, Vs. Rajkot. Ankur Apts., Dr. Floor, Aadarsh Society, B/H Ioc Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfj9480A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.N. Maurya, Cit. D.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.J. Ranpura, A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 27/02/2020 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)- 2, Rajkot [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 25/02/2016, 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 27/02/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2012-13. A.Y. 2012-13 The 1St Issue Raised By The Revenue Is That The Learned Cit (A) Erred In 2. Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao For Rs. 10,20,62,695/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure Under Section 69C Of The Act

26 4 -- 30 to 30 28 to 31/1 8 -- 8 -- 8 to 8 32 to 36/1 10 -- 10 -- 10 to 10 37 to 46/1 15 14 1 -- 15 to 15 47 to 62/1 27 24 3 -- 27 to 27 63 to 8/1 10 -- -- 10 10 to 10 Total 110 73 27 10 110 5.3.1 In fact, the AO herself vide

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

26) Road 5 SH - 17 STM Road 6 SH - 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

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

26) Road 5 SH - 17 STM Road 6 SH - 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

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

26) Road 5 SH - 17 STM Road 6 SH - 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

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

26) Road 5 SH - 17 STM Road 6 SH - 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

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:

26. On the touch-stone of jurisprudence regarding interpretation of the term “wholly and exclusively” for the purpose of business, we find that no case has been made out by the Revenue showing that the assessee does not fulfill the required parameter to qualify for deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. The only basis being that the assessee

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

26 A.Y.2011-12 and others 45. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. PCIT, erred in holding the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 46. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a private limited company and engaged

THE DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

26 A.Y.2011-12 and others 45. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. PCIT, erred in holding the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 46. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a private limited company and engaged

M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

26 A.Y.2011-12 and others 45. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. PCIT, erred in holding the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 46. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a private limited company and engaged