ADHYAKSHYA LOK MELA AMLIKARAN SAMMITTEE,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, RAJKOT

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy, आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 424 & 425/Rjt/2018 वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Adhyakshya Lok Mela Amlikaran Ito Sammittee Vs. Ward-1(2), A.D. Vyas & Co., Kotecha Nagar Rajkot Main Road, Opp. Kotecha Girls High School, Rajkot-360001 Pan: Aabaa0922F Assessee By : Shri D. M. Rindani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Common Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajkot Dated 24/03/2014 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In- After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010- 11. First, We Take Up Ita 424/Rjt/2018, An Appeal By The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground No 1 Order Of The Learned Cit 1 Rajkot Reopening The Assessment U/S 263 Is Totally Bad On Facts As Well On Law. Learned Cit Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Is Already Assessed U/S 143(3) By Ito 1(2) Rajkot.

143(3) by ITO 1(2) Rajkot. ITA Nos.424&425/Rjt/2018 A.Ys. 2009-10 &2010-11 2 Ground No 2 The learned CIT 1 Rajkot has grievously erred in disallowing the expenses of Rs 155800/- without considering the proviso to section

ADHYAKSHYA LOK MELA AMLIKARAN SAMMITTEE,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, RAJKOT

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy, आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 424 & 425/Rjt/2018 वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Adhyakshya Lok Mela Amlikaran Ito Sammittee Vs. Ward-1(2), A.D. Vyas & Co., Kotecha Nagar Rajkot Main Road, Opp. Kotecha Girls High School, Rajkot-360001 Pan: Aabaa0922F Assessee By : Shri D. M. Rindani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Common Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajkot Dated 24/03/2014 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In- After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010- 11. First, We Take Up Ita 424/Rjt/2018, An Appeal By The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground No 1 Order Of The Learned Cit 1 Rajkot Reopening The Assessment U/S 263 Is Totally Bad On Facts As Well On Law. Learned Cit Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Is Already Assessed U/S 143(3) By Ito 1(2) Rajkot.

143(3) by ITO 1(2) Rajkot. ITA Nos.424&425/Rjt/2018 A.Ys. 2009-10 &2010-11 2 Ground No 2 The learned CIT 1 Rajkot has grievously erred in disallowing the expenses of Rs 155800/- without considering the proviso to section

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

disallowed the deduction u/s\n80JJAA of the Act, to the tune of Rs.3,01,93,275/-. However, later on, the\nassessee`s case, was selected for scrutiny under section 143 (3

SAHADE vs. INH VAJESINH VAGHELA,RAJKOTVS.PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3B) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on\n12.04.2021 accepting returned income. The AO was observed that during the\nyear under consideration cash payments in excess of Rs. 10,000/- aggregating to\nRs.5,85,000/- towards staff salary was made by the assessee, which shows\nviolation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. it is seen that none

BATAVA DEVLI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,BATAVA DEVLI, TAL. KUNLAVA, DIST. AMRELI. 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)

3,99,585/- under section 80P of the Act on the ground that the claim of assessee was incorrect under section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act since the return of income was not filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the I.T.A No. 314/Rjt/2022

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)

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co-operative society, who filed return of income on 30-11-2020 declaring total income of " " Nil and claimed deduction of 6,53,498/-under section 80P of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee received intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act making adjustment

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

143(3) of the Act, on 30.09.2019, by reducing\nloss by Rs.71,02,531/-, after making addition of Rs.31,000/-, u/s 40A(3) of the\nAct and disallowing amortization expenses claimed of Rs. 70,71,\n825/-.\n8. Later on, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (in short “Ld\nPCIT\"), exercised his jurisdiction under section

M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

section 143(3 of the Act, and\nsuch a legal ground can be raised by the assessee at any stage. Therefore,\nlearned Counsel prayed the Bench to admit the above additional ground on\nlegal issue and adjudicate the same first, as it goes to the root of the matter.\n5. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue opposed

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

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

143(3) of the Income tax Act (the Act] passed by the Assistant\ncommissioner of Income tax. Circle -1 Jamnagar [the Ld. assessing officer]\ndetermining the total income of assessee as per normal computation of income at Rs\n50,17,35,726/- against returned income of Rs. 49,85,50,620/- and determining the Book\nprofit u/s 115JB

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

143(3) of\nthe Act and the jurisdictional assessing officers after thorough verification of the\nbooks of account and relevant supporting documents have accepted the book\nresults. Also, statutory audit by the officers of service-tax department have also\nbeen undertaken for the period April 2013 to March 2017, wherein, books of\naccount of the assessee have been accepted. Therefore

DAHIDA SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED ,VILLAGE: - DAHIDA, DIST.:- AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before CPC Centre claiming that there was no provision in section 143(1)(a) to make adjustment to the returned income by disallowing

ALIUDEPUR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,ALIUDEPUR VILLAGE, TALUKA LATHI, DIST.: - AMRELI-365430 vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before CPC Centre claiming that there was no provision in section 143(1)(a) to make adjustment to the returned income by disallowing

SHREE ANTALIYA KHETI VIKAS KARYAKARI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,LILIYA MOTA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before CPC Centre claiming that there was no provision in section 143(1)(a) to make adjustment to the returned income by disallowing

M/S. SARJU VITRIFIED PVT. LTD.,MORBI-363641 vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Income\nTax Act and therefore, the aggregate amount of Rs.3,05,37,160/- was required\nto be disallowed u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and added to the total income\nof the assessee while finalizing the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3

SHREE MANGROL VANIK DASHA SHRIMALI GNATI SHAPUR DARWAJA,MANGROAL-362225 vs. THE ITO (EXMPTION) WARD-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the order passed by Ld

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 143(1)(a)(i) or (ii), since disallowance I.T.A No. 56/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 Shree Mangrol

M/S CHOKSHI VACHHRAJ MAKANJI & CO.,JUNAGADH vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE - 1 (1), RAJKOT - GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3. The brief issue for consideration before us is whether Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of late payment of employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC of Rs. 91,369/- under Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 24(x) of the Income Tax Act. The Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the case of Arihant

AMRUTPUR SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,VILLAGE: - AMRUTPUR TALUKA DHARI, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

section 139(1). The Ld. A.O. CPC Bengaluru processed the return of income u/s. 143(1)(a)(ii) disallowing their claim of deduction u/s. 80P as the returns were not filed within the due date. 3

DHARESHWAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. ,VILLAGE: - DHARESHWAR, TALUKA: - RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

section 139(1). The Ld. A.O. CPC Bengaluru processed the return of income u/s. 143(1)(a)(ii) disallowing their claim of deduction u/s. 80P as the returns were not filed within the due date. 3

SHREE SANALIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,LITAL MOTALILIYA SANALIYA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

section 139(1). The Ld. A.O. CPC Bengaluru processed the return of income u/s. 143(1)(a)(ii) disallowing their claim of deduction u/s. 80P as the returns were not filed within the due date. 3