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

disallowed which was, in turn, confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal before us. 25. We have heard the submissions made by the respective parties. We have also perused the relevant materials available on record. ITA Nos.27/RJT/2016& 360,315/Rjt/2015 A.Y.2011-12,2012-13 It is the case of the assessee that the advance paid to the said Manjeet

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

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

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

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

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

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

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

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

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

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

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

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

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

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. DRB COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance to the tune of Rs. 28,45,800/- on account of bad debts written off during the year. 22. The brief facts leading to the case is this that at the appellant paid the impugned amount as tender deposit for supply of sesame seeds to one Korea Agro Fisheries Trade Corporation which became non refundable as the appellant were

THE DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT MEENABEN H LAKHANI, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance to the tune of Rs. 28,45,800/- on account of bad debts written off during the year. 22. The brief facts leading to the case is this that at the appellant paid the impugned amount as tender deposit for supply of sesame seeds to one Korea Agro Fisheries Trade Corporation which became non refundable as the appellant were

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (2), RAJKOT vs. SHRI NARENDRA NANJIBHAI DAVDA, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance to the tune of Rs. 28,45,800/- on account of bad debts written off during the year. 22. The brief facts leading to the case is this that at the appellant paid the impugned amount as tender deposit for supply of sesame seeds to one Korea Agro Fisheries Trade Corporation which became non refundable as the appellant were

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. DRB COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance to the tune of Rs. 28,45,800/- on account of bad debts written off during the year. 22. The brief facts leading to the case is this that at the appellant paid the impugned amount as tender deposit for supply of sesame seeds to one Korea Agro Fisheries Trade Corporation which became non refundable as the appellant were

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance to the tune of Rs. 28,45,800/- on account of bad debts written off during the year. 22. The brief facts leading to the case is this that at the appellant paid the impugned amount as tender deposit for supply of sesame seeds to one Korea Agro Fisheries Trade Corporation which became non refundable as the appellant were

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. D.M.L. WORLD TRADE PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance to the tune of Rs. 28,45,800/- on account of bad debts written off during the year. 22. The brief facts leading to the case is this that at the appellant paid the impugned amount as tender deposit for supply of sesame seeds to one Korea Agro Fisheries Trade Corporation which became non refundable as the appellant were

M/S. CHAMPION AGRO LTD.,,SAPAR (VERAVAL), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

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

138/- under the provisions of section 36(1)(va). 5. Without prejudice to ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding the rejection of the book result. The rejection of the book result is not justified. 6. Without prejudice to ground no 1 and 5, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding an addition

M/S. CHAMPION AGRO LTD.,,SAPAR (VERAVAL), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

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

138/- under the provisions of section 36(1)(va). 5. Without prejudice to ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding the rejection of the book result. The rejection of the book result is not justified. 6. Without prejudice to ground no 1 and 5, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding an addition