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

8. In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed.” Further that we have considered the judgment passed by the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Rimtex Industries in ITA No. 315/Rjt/2013 as relied upon by the Ld. AR and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S DML EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

8. In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed.” Further that we have considered the judgment passed by the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Rimtex Industries in ITA No. 315/Rjt/2013 as relied upon by the Ld. AR and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries

M/S. D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

8. In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed.” Further that we have considered the judgment passed by the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Rimtex Industries in ITA No. 315/Rjt/2013 as relied upon by the Ld. AR and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries

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

8 by the TPO on this basis,it was considered fit to restore the issue to the AO/TPO to examine the basis of preparing segmental accounts by the assessee. Both the parties fairly agreed with the same. 13. Since the entire basis of the TPO for rejecting benchmarking analysis done by the assessee and proposing the adjustment to the international

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

8 by the TPO on this basis,it was considered fit to restore the issue to the AO/TPO to examine the basis of preparing segmental accounts by the assessee. Both the parties fairly agreed with the same. 13. Since the entire basis of the TPO for rejecting benchmarking analysis done by the assessee and proposing the adjustment to the international

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

8 by the TPO on this basis,it was considered fit to restore the issue to the AO/TPO to examine the basis of preparing segmental accounts by the assessee. Both the parties fairly agreed with the same. 13. Since the entire basis of the TPO for rejecting benchmarking analysis done by the assessee and proposing the adjustment to the international

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

13) of section 80IA been substituted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2000. In the said explanation it is clearly mentioned that ""Explanation--for the removal of doubts, if it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to a business referred to in sub section (4) which

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

13) of section 80IA been substituted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2000. In the said explanation it is clearly mentioned that ""Explanation--for the removal of doubts, if it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to a business referred to in sub section (4) which

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

13) of section 80IA been substituted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2000. In the said explanation it is clearly mentioned that ""Explanation--for the removal of doubts, if it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to a business referred to in sub section (4) which

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

13) of section 80IA been substituted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2000. In the said explanation it is clearly mentioned that ""Explanation--for the removal of doubts, if it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to a business referred to in sub section (4) which

PRANAM ENTERPRISE,JUNAGADH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.391/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pranam Enterprise Vs. The Dcit Office No.3, City Centre, Opp. Circle-1(1), Rajkot New Collector Office, Junagadh – 362001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffp7926H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

13. The term "under-reporting" is defined in sub-Section (2) which provides seven situations wherein a person is considered to have under-reported his income. Sub-Section (8) provides five cases which shall not be recorded as under-reporting of income. Section 270A(6)(a) provides that where the explanation for non-reporting or under-reporting of income

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

13 Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Projects Ltd. 2007. Subsequently, a search action under section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of the assessee company and on 24-06-2010, an assessment order was passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, disallowing the deduction claimed under section 80IA

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

13 Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Projects Ltd. 2007. Subsequently, a search action under section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of the assessee company and on 24-06-2010, an assessment order was passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, disallowing the deduction claimed under section 80IA

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

13 Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Projects Ltd. 2007. Subsequently, a search action under section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of the assessee company and on 24-06-2010, an assessment order was passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, disallowing the deduction claimed under section 80IA

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

13 Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Projects Ltd. 2007. Subsequently, a search action under section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of the assessee company and on 24-06-2010, an assessment order was passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, disallowing the deduction claimed under section 80IA

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

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)

8 Godhavadar Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. ADIT (CPC) income within the time permissible under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the assessee filed its return of income belatedly on 30-11-2020 and claimed deduction of " 6,53,498/- under section 80P of the Act. The issue for consideration before us is that whether once the return

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

8. As regards Ground No. 6 related to rental income earned by the assessee amounting to Rs. 57,72,567/- being held as business income and was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act the Ld. D.R. submitted that the CIT(A) was not correct in allowing the said income. The Ld. D.R. relied upon assessment order