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

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 801A of the Appellant on the ground that 'Interest and Remuneration received by the partner cannot be said to have been derived from the business of an industrial undertaking (a) But it is a very well settled law that a firm is not a legal person even though it has same attributes of personality

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

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 801A of the Appellant on the ground that 'Interest and Remuneration received by the partner cannot be said to have been derived from the business of an industrial undertaking (a) But it is a very well settled law that a firm is not a legal person even though it has same attributes of personality

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

115 ITR 347(MP)\n(b) CIT VS. Maharani Lalita Raiya Laxmi Sahe(1979) CTR (PAT) 215/(1980) 121\nITR1012 (PAT)\nand also relying on the CBDT circular/letter No F.178/152/91-ITA-1 dated 31st July, 1992\ni.e. after amendment made per Finance Act 1992 w.e.f. 1st April 1993 and also considering\nvarious sections of the Act as above mentioned has held that

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

115 ITR 347(MP)\n(b) CIT VS. Maharani Lalita Raiya Laxmi Sahe(1979) CTR (PAT) 215/(1980) 121\nITR1012 (PAT)\n46\nand also relying on the CBDT circular/letter No F.178/152/91-ITA-1 dated 31st July, 1992\ni.e. after amendment made per Finance Act 1992 w.e.f. 1st April 1993 and also considering\nvarious sections of the Act as above mentioned has held

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

section 80HHC, which once been extended to the\npartnership firm could not be available to the partners in the computation of their income\neven though the partners urged before the ITO that their interest incomes from the\npartnership firm which had the character of business income being part of their share income\nand as such exempt from tax u/s.80HHC

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

section 80HHC, which once been extended to the\npartnership firm could not be available to the partners in the computation of their income\neven though the partners urged before the ITO that their interest incomes from the\npartnership firm which had the character of business income being part of their share income\nand as such exempt from tax u/s.80HHC

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

section 80HHC, which once been extended to the\npartnership firm could not be available to the partners in the computation of their income\neven though the partners urged before the ITO that their interest incomes from the\npartnership firm which had the character of business income being part of their share income\nand as such exempt from tax u/s.80HHC

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

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

section 80HHC, which once been extended to the\npartnership firm could not be available to the partners in the computation of their income\neven though the partners urged before the ITO that their interest incomes from the\npartnership firm which had the character of business income being part of their share income\nand as such exempt from tax u/s.80HHC

SHRI CHANDUBHAI RAMJIBHAI KAQTHIRIYA,JASDAN, DIST. RAJKOT-364490 vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

115 BBE of the Act, being unexplained cash credits. According to the PCIT, the AO has erred in only adding 50% of the agricultural income as unexplained/unaccounted income, whereas on a proper consideration of facts, the AO should have treated the entire agricultural income of " 28.65 lakhs as unexplained income under section 68 of the Act. Further

SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

115 JB of the\nAct. Then after, Ld. Senior Counsel took us through the ledger account of Polestar\nMaritime Ltd-equity share, on page-14 of the paper book, where investment was\n“written off” by the Company. On page number 21 of the paper book, the\ninvestment of Seabridge Realty Private Limited, 6% preference share, were\n\"written

NATHABHAI PARSANA (LR. GANESHBHAI PARSANA),RAJKOT vs. ACIT CIR -2(1), RAJKOT

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

115 BBE of the Act. 5.Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the action of Assessing Officer. The learned CIT(A) noted that assessee having been prompted to withdraw cash in spite of fact that he had enormous cash in hand already with him, clarifies

M/S. SHYAM ENTERPRISE,JAMNAGAR vs. ADIT (CPC), BENGALURU, BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

115 taxmann.com 340 (Gujarat). The Ld. CIT(Appeals) while passing the order made the following observations: “7.2 On of the sub-section and section, it is found the ADIT, CPC had rightly made disallowance

M/S SHREE RAJMOTI INDS.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE A. C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowance the claim of deduction u/s. 10(34) namely dividend income of Rs. 10,31,750/- received by the assessee from Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd.. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.1. On appeal against the quantum addition, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. It is thereafter the Assessing Officer

SHRI JAGDISHBHAI GORDHANBHAI DOABARIYA ,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.142/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jagdishbhai Gordhanbhai Dobariya The Pr.Cit-1 बनाम “Ramdev”2, Jivnath Park,B/H. Panchvati Aayakar Bhavan, Race Hall,Panchvati Main Road,Nr.Gandhi Vs. Course Ring Road, School,Rajkot 360 001 Rajkot. Pan : Abrpd8654R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

disallowing the claim as per section 57(iii) of the Act. As per section 57(iii) of the Act, only requirement for allowing the deduction under section 57(iii) is that the expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning of income, not resulting into profit. Thus as per scheme of the section

SHRI ANISH HASAN BAKHAI,KESHOD vs. THE AO, WARD-1, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

disallowance @ 10% on Rs.Rs.5,62,500/-, which comes to Rs.56,250/-. Therefore, assessing officer is Shri Anish Hasan Bakhai ITA No.132 /RJT/2024 (AY : 2017-18) 6 directed to make the addition to the tune of Rs.56,250/-, in the hands of the assessee, by applying the normal rate of income tax ( not the rate prescribed under section 115

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance in the assessment proceedings; Hence, such ‘illegal cash payment transactions” is added and abetted by the assessee and his associates whereby the purchaser deposits the differential cash amount in the bank a/c of the assessee. The assessee is contacted by the seller about the said deposit or informed by the purchaser about it. The assessee verifies the deposits

MANOJBHAI ARVINDBHAI PAREKH,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 385 /Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Manojbhai Arvindbhai Parekh The Acit Of I. T. Circle – 2(1), Shreeji Giriraj Trading, 19-Giriraj Vs. Rajkot – 360001 Chamber, Old Gadhiwas Soni Bazar, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acypp1471C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance should be restricted to the extent Rs.3,00,000/-, in lump sum only, with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Manojbhai Arvindbhai Parekh v. ACIT ITA No.385/Rjt/2023 AY. 2017-18 20. Since the cash sales of the assessee, were out of his core business activities, hence cash sales is assessable under the head

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

115 BBE could not have\nbeen applied, for that learned Counsel for the assessee, relied on the judgement\nof the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Surat in the case of Samir Shantilal Mehta,\nvide ITA42/SRT/2022 order dated 08/05/2023.\n13. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. for the Revenue, submitted before us written\nsubmission and argued also stating that Sections

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

disallowed 15% of Rs.93,22,874/- which comes to Rs.13,98,431/- and added this amount to the total income of the appellant as AOP by order dated 24.03.2025. 5. That the assessee filed the appeals against the assessment order before the Ld.CIT(A). That the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee with following observation