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)

10B, it was mandatory for the assessee to file a declaration as per the provisions of section 139(1), which is of mandatory nature and directory as well. Further, Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the case of Saffire Garments 28 taxmann.com 27 (Rajkot) (SB), wherein the Rajkot ITAT Special Bench held that proviso to sub-section (1A) of section

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 10AA or under any provisions of Chapter VIA w.e.f. 1st April 2021, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section 1 of section 139. This shows the legislative intent while amending sub-section (v) of section 143(1)(a) w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to include all provisions of Chapter

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 10AA or under any provisions of Chapter VIA w.e.f. 1st April 2021, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section 1 of section 139. This shows the legislative intent while amending sub-section (v) of section 143(1)(a) w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to include all provisions of Chapter

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 10AA or under any provisions of Chapter VIA w.e.f. 1st April 2021, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section 1 of section 139. This shows the legislative intent while amending sub-section (v) of section 143(1)(a) w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to include all provisions of Chapter

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 10AA or under any provisions of Chapter VIA w.e.f. 1st April 2021, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section 1 of section 139. This shows the legislative intent while amending sub-section (v) of section 143(1)(a) w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to include all provisions of Chapter

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)

10B, it was mandatory for the assessee to file a declaration as per the provisions of section 139(1), which is mandatory nature and directory as well. Further, Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the case of Saffire Garments 28 taxmann.com 27 (Rajkot) (SB), wherein the Rajkot ITAT Special Bench held that proviso to sub-section (1A) of section 10A, which

THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S SRV METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

4. The Id. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the factual and legal matrix of the addition made u/s.43B of Rs 99,549/-. The Id. CIT(A) grossly erred in holding that although the disallowance is rightly made, there should be simultaneous increase in 10B deduction. 5. The ld. CIT(A) has erred

ALIDAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,GIR SOMNATH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, VERAVAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed deduction under section 80P on interest income of Rs. 42,28,962/- Appeal to the CIT(A)-3 did not bring any relief to the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s. 234 in absence of the specific instruction under the Assessment order, my kindly be deleted 4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred

ALIADAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,GIR SOMNATH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, , VERAVAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed deduction under section 80P on interest income of Rs. 42,28,962/- Appeal to the CIT(A)-3 did not bring any relief to the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s. 234 in absence of the specific instruction under the Assessment order, my kindly be deleted 4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred

ALIDAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,GIR SOMNATH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, VERAVAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed deduction under section 80P on interest income of Rs. 42,28,962/- Appeal to the CIT(A)-3 did not bring any relief to the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s. 234 in absence of the specific instruction under the Assessment order, my kindly be deleted 4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred

THE ITO, WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. M/S D. JEWEL,, JUNAGADH

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.350/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Income Tax Officer, M/S. D. Jewel, Ward-2, Vs. 1-Shishu Mangal Road, Junagadh. Gandhigram, Junagadh.

4. At the outset, we note that the learned CIT-A in his order dated 24th February 2020 has deleted the penalty by observing as under: As the underlying assessment order alongwith agitated upon adverse observations and disallowances by AO stands deleted, penalty on the same issue does not survive and hence the same is deleted. 4.1 From the above

THE ITO, WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. M/S D. JEWEL,, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.15/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Income Tax Officer, M/S. D. Jewel, Ward-2, Vs. 1-Shishu Mangal Road, Junagadh. Gandhigram, Junagadh.

4 of 14 Asstt. Year 2013-14 i. On verification of list of purchases, it was found that the assessee had purchased 22K and 18K gold ornaments in bulk quantity weighing 13,932.59 gms and 606.02 gms valued at Rs. 2,57,39,445/- and Rs. 32,59,881/- respectively from its sister concern. Therefore it was purchasing the finished

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S ATUL AUTO LIMITED,, SHAPAR.VERAVAL

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C,—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder”. The wordings of section 80A(5) clearly mentions that claim should be made in return of income. The word return of income includes return of income filed

ATUL AUTO LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C,—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder”. The wordings of section 80A(5) clearly mentions that claim should be made in return of income. The word return of income includes return of income filed

M/S. SHAILDEEP ENGINEERING P. LTD., RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2019-20 Shaildeep Engineering P.Ltd. Vs. Adit, Cpc C-1/38, Gidc, Aji Industrial Delhi. Estate, Phase-1, Rajkot Sanosara B.O.,Jaliya Rajkot 360 003. Pan : Aaecs 9245 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Akash Goda, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 27.12.201 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2019-20. 2. As Transpires From Orders Of The Authority Below, The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Vis-À-Vis Adjustment Made To The Income Of The Assessee In The Intimation Made Under Section 143(1) Of The Act By Way Of Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80Jja Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,02,500/- & Disallowance Of Employees’ 2 Contribution To Esi & Pf In Terms Of Section 36(1)(Va) Amounting To Rs.2,81,444/-. The Reasons For Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 80Jja Being Non-Filing Of Necessary Audit Report In Form No.10Da Along With Return Of Income & That For Disallowance Of Employees’ Contribution To Esi & Pf Being Late Deposit Of The Same With The Requisite Funds.

4. Vis-à-vis the aspect of disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under section80JJA of the Act on account of non-filing of requisite audit report along with return of income, the ld.counsel for the assessee admitted that though the same was not filed along with return of income, it was however filed during the appellate proceedings before

YASMEEN WASEEM PARMAR ,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT , JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.194/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Yasmeen Waseem Parmar, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Bawa No Delo, Opp. Old Post Income Tax, Office, Nagarpara Main Road, Jamnagar O/S. Khambhaliya Gate, Jamnagar, Gujarat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aijph3607F (Assessee) (Respondent)

4. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. During the revision proceedings, under section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (in short “Ld PCIT”), has observed that assessee has not filed return of income for the assessment year

SHREE MANGROL VANIK DASHA SHRIMALI GNATI SHAPUR DARWAJA,MANGROAL-362225 vs. THE ITO (EXMPTION) WARD-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the order passed by Ld

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

4. In the filed appeal by the assessee before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that the adjustment made u/s 143(1) of the Act does not fall within the ambit of either section 143(1)(a)(i) or (ii), since disallowance I.T.A No. 56/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 Shree Mangrol Vanik Dasha Shrimali Gnati Shapur Darwaja

M/S. KUTCH MANDVI BHATIYA MAHAJAN,MANDV-KUTCH vs. THE ITO-WARD-1, RAJKOT

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

disallowance of exemption under Section 11(2) of the Act, who dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground that though form number 10 and form number 10B were filed by the assessee within the due prescribed date i.e. before 17-10-2016, however, the assessee filed the return of income under section