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

15. This ground of appeal relates to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 6,02,976/- under Section 14 A of the Act. 16. The brief

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

15. The facts relating to the issue are that expenditure amounting in all to Rs.1,60,83,722/- incurred on account of the following were disallowed under section

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

15. The facts relating to the issue are that expenditure amounting in all to Rs.1,60,83,722/- incurred on account of the following were disallowed under section

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

15. The facts relating to the issue are that expenditure amounting in all to Rs.1,60,83,722/- incurred on account of the following were disallowed under section

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

15. As regards ground no.4, the ld DR submitted that the CIT(A) was not right in deleting the disallowance of Rs.30,23,032/- being differential royalty on Basalt considering it as allowable deduction. The Ld. DR submitted that the Company has unauthorisedly procured Basalt Powder from certain suppliers without payment of Royalty. The Ld. DR further submitted that when

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

15. As regards ground no.4, the ld DR submitted that the CIT(A) was not right in deleting the disallowance of Rs.30,23,032/- being differential royalty on Basalt considering it as allowable deduction. The Ld. DR submitted that the Company has unauthorisedly procured Basalt Powder from certain suppliers without payment of Royalty. The Ld. DR further submitted that when

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

SHRI JUGALKISHORE NATWARLAL DHOLAKIA,JUNAGADH vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 14/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Jugalkishore Natwarlal Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abqpd 2710 D आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 15/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Girishkumar Vachhraj Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abupd 6245 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Jani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy:-

disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D of Rs. 15,97,108/- should have been made in this case. 3. The facts mentioned above show that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for me A.Y. 2015-16 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue as the AO has passed the assessment

SHRI GIRISHKUMAR VACHHRAJ DHOLAKIA,,JUNAGADH vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 14/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Jugalkishore Natwarlal Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abqpd 2710 D आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 15/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Girishkumar Vachhraj Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abupd 6245 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Jani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy:-

disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D of Rs. 15,97,108/- should have been made in this case. 3. The facts mentioned above show that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for me A.Y. 2015-16 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue as the AO has passed the assessment

BAN LABS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.202/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ban Labs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ban House, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Income Tax-1, Nagar, Gondal Road (South), Rajkot Rajkot-360004 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacb8999C (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D for the investments which may have yielded exempt income. Thus, it is clear that while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) read with section 144B of the I.T. Act for A.Y. 2018-19, on 01.09.2021, the AO has not properly verified/ examined the facts of the case and the issue under consideration. Considering

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

disallowed, which is apparently a wrong claim and against the provisions of law as discussed above. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx “5. The arguments put forth by the assessee company have been carefully considered and a claim of the assessee has been thoroughly examined in the light of provisions of section 80IA(4) read with explanation inserted after sub section (13) of section

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

disallowed, which is apparently a wrong claim and against the provisions of law as discussed above. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx “5. The arguments put forth by the assessee company have been carefully considered and a claim of the assessee has been thoroughly examined in the light of provisions of section 80IA(4) read with explanation inserted after sub section (13) of section

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

disallowed, which is apparently a wrong claim and against the provisions of law as discussed above. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx “5. The arguments put forth by the assessee company have been carefully considered and a claim of the assessee has been thoroughly examined in the light of provisions of section 80IA(4) read with explanation inserted after sub section (13) of section

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

disallowed, which is apparently a wrong claim and against the provisions of law as discussed above. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx “5. The arguments put forth by the assessee company have been carefully considered and a claim of the assessee has been thoroughly examined in the light of provisions of section 80IA(4) read with explanation inserted after sub section (13) of section

THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S SRV METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

disallowance was made because the assessee did not produce enough details to establish the genuineness of the unsecured loans. As regards to ground no.6, the Ld. DR submitted that the addition of Rs.1,12,500/- on account of Director’s remuneration ought to have been sustained because the assessee failed to produce proof of the same. As regards to ground

SHRI JAYANTKUMAR MOTICHAND DOSHI,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (1) (2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2013-14 Shri Jayantikumar M. Doshi Ito, Ward-2(1)(2) “Illa Villa”, Ashapura Road Vs Rajkot. Rajkot.

15,36,991/-, and (ii) claim of interest amounting to Rs.12,07,435/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 4. The case of Ld.Pr.CIT with respect to the claim of interest expenses as per provision of section 43B of the Act was that while the assessee had disallowed

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

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

section 80-IC of Rs.1,18,45,693/-, on protective basis, on the alleged ground of inflated profit of Rudrapur unit, being sale by Rajkot unit, in respect of item code 235F and 236F to Rudrapur unit-1. The disallowance made by the assessing officer and retained by CIT(A), is totally unjustified, uncalled for and deserves to be deleted

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

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

section 80-IC of Rs.1,18,45,693/-, on protective basis, on the alleged ground of inflated profit of Rudrapur unit, being sale by Rajkot unit, in respect of item code 235F and 236F to Rudrapur unit-1. The disallowance made by the assessing officer and retained by CIT(A), is totally unjustified, uncalled for and deserves to be deleted