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

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

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

disallowed loss claimed by assessee on sale of shares on ground that\nassessee traded in shares of penny stock and claimed bogus loss, since shares were\npurchased online and payments were made through banking channel and AO had no\nevidence to show that there was an agreement between assessee and any other party to\nconvert accounted money by taking fictitious

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

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 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

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

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

disallowed loss claimed by assessee on sale of shares on ground that\nassessee traded in shares of penny stock and claimed bogus loss, since shares were\npurchased online and payments were made through banking channel and AO had no\nevidence to show that there was an agreement between assessee and any other party to\nconvert accounted money by taking fictitious

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ADDI. CIT, RANGE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

ASSISTANT COMMISSINER OF IINCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

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