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

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) is not warranted when the tax deduction at sources was incorrectly me under a different section which resulted in the shortfall. · Hon’ble ITAT Delhi ‘E’ Bench in the case of Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. vs. ITO 12

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

12,92,337/-. Therefore, this tantamount to double disallowance. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Ground no.10 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 36. Thus, ITA No.476/RJT/2014 filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 37. Now coming to the assessee’s appeal ITA No.457/RJT/2014, ground no.1 is related to disallowance of Rs.8,304/- being

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

12,92,337/-. Therefore, this tantamount to double disallowance. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Ground no.10 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 36. Thus, ITA No.476/RJT/2014 filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 37. Now coming to the assessee’s appeal ITA No.457/RJT/2014, ground no.1 is related to disallowance of Rs.8,304/- being

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

12 18. Referring to the same, he pointed out that the DRP in substance had agreed with the finding of the AO that since the assessee had failed to establish the necessity for availing services in connection with the expenses incurred and benefit thereto was not proved, therefore, the expenses were liable to be disallowed under ITA (TP)No.97/RJT/2016

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

12 18. Referring to the same, he pointed out that the DRP in substance had agreed with the finding of the AO that since the assessee had failed to establish the necessity for availing services in connection with the expenses incurred and benefit thereto was not proved, therefore, the expenses were liable to be disallowed under ITA (TP)No.97/RJT/2016

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

12 18. Referring to the same, he pointed out that the DRP in substance had agreed with the finding of the AO that since the assessee had failed to establish the necessity for availing services in connection with the expenses incurred and benefit thereto was not proved, therefore, the expenses were liable to be disallowed under ITA (TP)No.97/RJT/2016

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)

12 Godhavadar Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. ADIT (CPC) (Chandigarh - Trib.), the ITAT held that enabling provisions of sub-clause (v) of section 143(1) providing for disallowance

SHRI RAJKOT VISHASHRIMALI JAIN SAMAJ ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

12, would automatically stand negated u/s 143(1) of the Act. 4.10. It may be pertinent to quote the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shivanand Electronics 209 ITR 63 to emphasis the point: "When the Legislature casts a duty on the assessee claiming certain benefit, to comply with requirements which

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES P. LTD.,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) to the extent of Rs. 2,30,935/-. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 of Revenue’s appeal are partly allowed. 12. As regards Ground No. 5 the issue related to education cess & SHEC under Section

VIPULKUMAR HEMANTLAL POPAT, UPLETA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 72/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 Vipul H. Popat, I.T.O., Prop. Mathav Agro Industri, Vs. Tds-1, Nilkanthkhandskampound, Rajkot. Dhoraji Road, Upleta, Rajkot. C/O D.R Adhia “Om Shri Padamlaya”, Nr. Trikamrayji Haweli, 16-Jagnath Plot, Dr.Yagnik Road, Opp. Imperial Hotel, Rajkot-360001

12. As already explained and evidenced from the computation of income as well as the orders of AO in the assessment proceedings, the entire provision has been disallowed under section

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:

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The appellant prays that the addition made by the Learned AO in relation to the disallowance of reimbursement of bank guarantee commission be deleted. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think

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

disallow the claim of the assessee under section 80-IA of the Act. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) in his order has categorically observed that “it is not relevant whether any incriminating was found in any particular order and all of the relevant years. Therefore, ground of appeal that the assessments already made cannot be reopened under section 153A

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

disallow the claim of the assessee under section 80-IA of the Act. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) in his order has categorically observed that “it is not relevant whether any incriminating was found in any particular order and all of the relevant years. Therefore, ground of appeal that the assessments already made cannot be reopened under section 153A

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

disallow the claim of the assessee under section 80-IA of the Act. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) in his order has categorically observed that “it is not relevant whether any incriminating was found in any particular order and all of the relevant years. Therefore, ground of appeal that the assessments already made cannot be reopened under section 153A

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

disallow the claim of the assessee under section 80-IA of the Act. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) in his order has categorically observed that “it is not relevant whether any incriminating was found in any particular order and all of the relevant years. Therefore, ground of appeal that the assessments already made cannot be reopened under section 153A

SHRI JAIN SWETAMBER MURTIPUJAK TAPGACHCHH SANGHA,DHORAJI, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE NFAC (APPEALS) DELHI, DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed. 4. The assessee in the present case is a Trust and filed its return of income declaring an income of Rs. NIL after claiming exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. However, the CPC while processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act did not allow the benefit of deduction of the expenditure claimed

LATE SHANTABEN CHANDRASHANKAR VYAS CHARITABLE TRUST,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CPC),, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.25/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2018-2019 वष"

disallowance made in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act by observing as under: A.Y. 2018-19 3 4.2 The submission of the appellant is considered. In this regard, it is to be noted that proceedings under section 143(1) is not an assessment. The proceedings under section 143(1) is like preliminary checking of the return

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.

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rule for Rs. 12,20,136/- towards interest expenses