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

disallowance of Rs. 6,02,976/- under Section 14 A of the Act. 16. The brief facts regarding the issue

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

disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act: i) Management fees : Rs.40,25,611/- ii) SAP & Opti-mill service fee : Rs.13,82,629/- iii) Business Area Service : Rs.97,41,600- Total : Rs.1,60,83,722/- 16

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

disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act: i) Management fees : Rs.40,25,611/- ii) SAP & Opti-mill service fee : Rs.13,82,629/- iii) Business Area Service : Rs.97,41,600- Total : Rs.1,60,83,722/- 16

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

disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act: i) Management fees : Rs.40,25,611/- ii) SAP & Opti-mill service fee : Rs.13,82,629/- iii) Business Area Service : Rs.97,41,600- Total : Rs.1,60,83,722/- 16

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

Section 41(1) of the Act as not allowed earlier under any provisions of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chetan Chemicals Private Limited 267 ITR 770. A.Ys. 2010-11 11 We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available

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

Section 41(1) of the Act as not allowed earlier under any provisions of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chetan Chemicals Private Limited 267 ITR 770. A.Ys. 2010-11 11 We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available

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)(i) of the Act. 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in and learned DRP has further erred in confirming disallowance of INR 16

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

disallowance under Section 14A made by the Assessing Officer is not valid. As regards Ground No. 5 the Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble DCIT vs. M/s. Seabird Marine Services P. Ltd. Asst.Year –2013-14 Bombay High Court in case of Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. JCIT 117 taxmann.com 96 where the claim of deduction of education cess

VIPULKUMAR HEMANTLAL POPAT, UPLETA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 72/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 Vipul H. Popat, I.T.O., Prop. Mathav Agro Industri, Vs. Tds-1, Nilkanthkhandskampound, Rajkot. Dhoraji Road, Upleta, Rajkot. C/O D.R Adhia “Om Shri Padamlaya”, Nr. Trikamrayji Haweli, 16-Jagnath Plot, Dr.Yagnik Road, Opp. Imperial Hotel, Rajkot-360001

16-Jagnath Plot, Dr.Yagnik Road, Opp. Imperial Hotel, Rajkot-360001, PAN: APGPP3103E Assessee by : Written Submission Revenue by : Shri BD Gupta, CIT. D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 23/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee

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

16 & 19 by treating the assessee as a "Developer" of infrastructure projects instead of "Work Contractor" as treated by the Assessing officer. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in allowing the employers contribution to P.P. which is paid beyond the due date specified as per P.P. Act. 4) On facts and circumstances

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

16 & 19 by treating the assessee as a "Developer" of infrastructure projects instead of "Work Contractor" as treated by the Assessing officer. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in allowing the employers contribution to P.P. which is paid beyond the due date specified as per P.P. Act. 4) On facts and circumstances

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

16 & 19 by treating the assessee as a "Developer" of infrastructure projects instead of "Work Contractor" as treated by the Assessing officer. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in allowing the employers contribution to P.P. which is paid beyond the due date specified as per P.P. Act. 4) On facts and circumstances

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

16 & 19 by treating the assessee as a "Developer" of infrastructure projects instead of "Work Contractor" as treated by the Assessing officer. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in allowing the employers contribution to P.P. which is paid beyond the due date specified as per P.P. Act. 4) On facts and circumstances

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

16 M/s Classic Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. M/s. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. assessee cannot claim that it could not be disallowed in subsequent assessments under 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

16 M/s Classic Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. M/s. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. assessee cannot claim that it could not be disallowed in subsequent assessments under 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

16 M/s Classic Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. M/s. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. assessee cannot claim that it could not be disallowed in subsequent assessments under 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

16 M/s Classic Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. M/s. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. assessee cannot claim that it could not be disallowed in subsequent assessments under section

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of Rs.3,16,82,477/- though the assessee had made interest free