SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

disallowed 15% of Rs.93,22,874/- which comes to Rs.13,98,431/- and added this amount to the total income of the appellant as AOP by order dated 24.03.2025. 5. That the assessee filed the appeals against the assessment order before the Ld.CIT(A). That the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee with following observation

M/S. JAI MAA HIRAL ENTERPRISE,KHAMBHALIYA vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance u/s. 38(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24) of the Act on account of late payment of employees' contribution to PF & ESI where assessee did not deposit contribution to employees account in relevant fund before due date prescribed in Explanation to section 38(l)(va), no deduction would be admissible even though he deposits I.T.A No. 128/Rjt/2021

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2011-12 Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Vs. Pr.Cit, Rajkot-1 Bank Ltd. Rajkot. ‘Jilla Bank Bhavan’, Kasturba Road Opp: Chaudhari High School Rajkot. Pan : Aaaar 0564 K 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2023

disallowed as deduction. Such orders cannot be held to be erroneous 3. The learned Principal CIT is not permitted in law to pre-judge taxability of Rs. 25.00 Crore transferred from Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debt to Statutory Reserve and propose the same to be taxed which effectively serves as directions to AO to make specified addition

ROGI KALYAN SAMITI CHITAL,CHITAL AMRELI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD-2 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.328/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Rogi Kalyan Samiti Chital, Income Tax Officer C. H. C. Chital, Chital District, Vs. (Exemption), Ward – 2, Rajkot Amreli-365 601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aactr 0652 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of deduction amounting to Rs.3,99,140/-. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. ITA.328/RJT/2023/AY.2013-14 Rogi Kalyan Samiti Chital 4. That, the finding of the Ld. CIT and Ld. AO are not justified in law as well as facts of the case

RAJSHANTI METALS PVT. LTD.,,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 176/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 Rajshanti Metals Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of B-42, Gidc, Vs. Income Tax, Shankar Tekri, Jamnagar. Jamnagar.

disallowed. Our client has also obtained certificate in Form No.10CCB wherein it is mentioned that the above enterprise satisfied the conditions stipulated u/s.80IA and the amount of deduction claimed is deductible. We rely on the following judgements. West Cast Paper Mill Vs CIT 32 CIT 32 SOT 164 Delhi Dalamiya Cement (Bharat Ltd.), Mumbai Vs CIT 103 ITD 19/100

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

164 of the paper book volume 1 pertaining to the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench ‘L’ in the case of Citicrop Investment Bank (Singapore) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (International Taxation) dated 24th March, 2017 wherein it is held that income earned by assessee, a Singapore based company on sale of debt instrument was not taxable in India as per Article

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

164 of the paper book volume 1 pertaining to the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench ‘L’ in the case of Citicrop Investment Bank (Singapore) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (International Taxation) dated 24th March, 2017 wherein it is held that income earned by assessee, a Singapore based company on sale of debt instrument was not taxable in India as per Article

SHREE MALIYA KADVA PATEL SEVA SAMAJ,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed in above terms

disallowance of expenditure made by the AO shall have no relevance and cannot result into positive income at all. 10. Corpus donations are capital receipts, irrespective of whether a trust enjoys benefit of sec. 11 and 12 or not. Case Law Compilation Case Law Citation Page No. Hamdard National Foundation (2020) 82 ITR (Trib) 164 127-133 India Delhi Prakash

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

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

164 (Mumbai Trib.) (xv) Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT [2002] 122\ntaxmann.om 562 (SC) (xvi) Azadi Bachao Andolan vs. UOI [132 Taxman 373]\n(SC) and (xvii) Banyan & Berry vs. CIT [1996] 222 ITR 831 (Guj).\n14. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue supported the order of\nlower authorities. The Ld. CIT-DR took us through

SHRI PRASHANTSINH AJITSINH CHAUHAN,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

disallowance for such defaults”. The Principal CIT is of the view that the act of the assessing Officer in not converting the limited scrutiny assessment into full scrutiny assessment, looking into the fact that substantial amount was deposited by the assessee in the bank accounts held by him during the demonetization period, makes the order of the AO erroneous

SHREE SHIVAM COTTON INDUSTRIES,AT ROHISHALA, TAL. TANKARA, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-5, MORBI, MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hearing Of The Appeal.”

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- I.T.A No. 142/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 2 Shree Shivam Cotton Industries vs. ITO “1. The Ld. AO has erred in making addition u/s. 68 towards Loan of Rs.1,29,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- accepted during