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

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

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

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

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

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

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. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, 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 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

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

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for Assessment

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 DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) submitted that the performance guarantee has been given to the buyers of the product supplied by it which is 10% of the contract price. Such guarantee is given

M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) submitted that the performance guarantee has been given to the buyers of the product supplied by it which is 10% of the contract price. Such guarantee is given

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) submitted that the performance guarantee has been given to the buyers of the product supplied by it which is 10% of the contract price. Such guarantee is given

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) submitted that the performance guarantee has been given to the buyers of the product supplied by it which is 10% of the contract price. Such guarantee is given

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

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act with the following observations: “11. The contract at Sr.No.1 was for periodic maintenance works comprising of bituminous concrete overlay on Gurgaon, Kotputli and I.T.A Nos. 127 & 148/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 40 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise Ltd. Amer Section

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

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act with the following observations: “11. The contract at Sr.No.1 was for periodic maintenance works comprising of bituminous concrete overlay on Gurgaon, Kotputli and I.T.A Nos. 127 & 148/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 40 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise Ltd. Amer Section

M/S. MOKSHSTAR INTERNATIONAL,,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL CIT, , GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Time Of Hearing.”

section 37 and as such there is no provision provided under Act empowering Assessing Officer to make disallowance on ad-hoc basis despite fact that assessee consents for such disallowance during assessment proceedings. In the case of M.V.A. Seetharama Raju v. DCIT [2022] 137 taxmann.com 147 (Chennai - Trib.), the ITAT held that in respect of foreign travelling expenses unless Assessing

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

THE ITO, WARD-1(3),, JAMNAGAR vs. SHRI MALDEBHAI NARANBHAI VAROTARIA,, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 169/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-2013 Income-Tax Officer, Shri Maldebhai Naranbhai Varotaria, Ward-1(3), Vs. Madhav Corporation, Jamnagar 3Rd Floor, Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Corner, Jamnagar.

disallowance of the deduction claimed under section 54B of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,58,67,007.00 only. 3. The assessee in the present case is an individual and claimed to be engaged in the business of land development and also drawing salary income. The assessee was the owner of agricultural land bearing survey number 384/2 situated at Thaltej