BACKBONE ENTERPRISE LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

II) 40rnm to 63mm size aggregate 3350.00 Cum (H.B.I 4 Supplying and spreading Murrurn 1850.00 Cum including necessary watering and rolling. 5 Rolling and consolidation water 31170.00 Sqmt bound macadam including watering not exceeding 150 mm thickness (main layer including binding materials) including fillings in depression which occur during process with power roller exceeding 8 tonne and not exceeding

THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

II) 40rnm to 63mm size aggregate 3350.00 Cum (H.B.I 4 Supplying and spreading Murrurn 1850.00 Cum including necessary watering and rolling. 5 Rolling and consolidation water 31170.00 Sqmt bound macadam including watering not exceeding 150 mm thickness (main layer including binding materials) including fillings in depression which occur during process with power roller exceeding 8 tonne and not exceeding

BACKBONE ENTERPRISE LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company.” 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) discussed facts of each of the individual projects carried out by the assessee on merits, and based on the analysis of each of the projects, gave part relief to the assessee. The Department and the assessee are in appeal

THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company.” 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) discussed facts of each of the individual projects carried out by the assessee on merits, and based on the analysis of each of the projects, gave part relief to the assessee. The Department and the assessee are in appeal

THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ii) In addition to works contract, the assessee undertakes addition responsibilities and risks attached to the project being undertaken, both financial risk as well as undertaking responsibility towards various other obligations attached towards successful completion and handling over the project including post completion performance guarantee, then he would, in our considered view, be eligible to deduction u/s 80-IA(4

BACKBONE ENTERPRISE LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ii) In addition to works contract, the assessee undertakes addition responsibilities and risks attached to the project being undertaken, both financial risk as well as undertaking responsibility towards various other obligations attached towards successful completion and handling over the project including post completion performance guarantee, then he would, in our considered view, be eligible to deduction u/s 80-IA(4

M/S MKC INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANJAR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

10 MKC Gandhidham House, Bhuj-Bhachau Vs (Respondent) Bypass, Shivnagar Society, Anjar PAN: AAGCM6509F (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 17-10-2022 Date of pronouncement : 13-01-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, arises from order

GODHAVADAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,GODHAVADAR, LILIYA MOTA, AMRELI-365535 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)

10 Godhavadar Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. ADIT (CPC) section 143(1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). In our view, the scope of the adjustments that can be made under the said provision has been elaborated in the Explanation to the aforesaid section, which does not include denial

AMBARADI SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,AMBARADI , DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT(CPC), BANGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

ii) of the Act by way of deduction under Section 80P to the returned income is not filed within due date. The assessee filed response in reply to communication under Section 143(1)(c) of the Act by stating that the return of income was filed under Section 139(4) of the Act and provisions of Section

DHARESHWAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. ,VILLAGE: - DHARESHWAR, TALUKA: - RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

ii) of the Act by way of deduction under Section 80P to the returned income is not filed within due date. The assessee filed response in reply to communication under Section 143(1)(c) of the Act by stating that the return of income was filed under Section 139(4) of the Act and provisions of Section

AMRUTPUR SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,VILLAGE: - AMRUTPUR TALUKA DHARI, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

ii) of the Act by way of deduction under Section 80P to the returned income is not filed within due date. The assessee filed response in reply to communication under Section 143(1)(c) of the Act by stating that the return of income was filed under Section 139(4) of the Act and provisions of Section

SHREE SANALIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,LITAL MOTALILIYA SANALIYA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

ii) of the Act by way of deduction under Section 80P to the returned income is not filed within due date. The assessee filed response in reply to communication under Section 143(1)(c) of the Act by stating that the return of income was filed under Section 139(4) of the Act and provisions of Section

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facilities. On perusal of the provision of section 80IA(4) of the Act, viewed in the light of the explanation, inserted after sub section (13) of section 80IA, which clarifies the provision of section 80IA(4), the assessee is apparently not eligible for deduction claimed under section80IA(4

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT 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

ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facilities. On perusal of the provision of section 80IA(4) of the Act, viewed in the light of the explanation, inserted after sub section (13) of section 80IA, which clarifies the provision of section 80IA(4), the assessee is apparently not eligible for deduction claimed under section80IA(4

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT 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

ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facilities. On perusal of the provision of section 80IA(4) of the Act, viewed in the light of the explanation, inserted after sub section (13) of section 80IA, which clarifies the provision of section 80IA(4), the assessee is apparently not eligible for deduction claimed under section80IA(4

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facilities. On perusal of the provision of section 80IA(4) of the Act, viewed in the light of the explanation, inserted after sub section (13) of section 80IA, which clarifies the provision of section 80IA(4), the assessee is apparently not eligible for deduction claimed under section80IA(4

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)

disallowed in section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, especially in the fact that the scope of sub- clause (ii) has been specifically defined in section 143(1). As observed earlier, in our view, the scope of sub- clause (ii) of section 143(1)(a) does not cover delay in filing of return of income beyond the due prescribed

THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (4),, RAJKOT vs. PATEL HIGHWAY MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 383/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-2014 Patel Highway Management Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O., 2Nd Floor, Patcon House, Vs. Ward-2(1)4, Kalwad Road, Rajkot. Kotecha Chowk, Rajkot.

10. We have heard the rival contention and perused the record place before us. Sole issue raised by Revenue is against the order of ''Ld.CIT (A)'' deleting disallowance made by the ''Ld.AO'' denying deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act at Rs.7,73,77,928/- 11. We observe that NHAI awarded the contract to operate maintain and transfer