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

19. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the provision of sub- Section 1 of Sec. 14 A of the Act has not been complied with by recording satisfaction as to the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to the income which does

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 ITA (TP)No.97/RJT/2016 and 2 Others 13 section 37(1) of the Act. He pointed out that the DRP had relied on various case laws in support of his finding as above. 19

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 ITA (TP)No.97/RJT/2016 and 2 Others 13 section 37(1) of the Act. He pointed out that the DRP had relied on various case laws in support of his finding as above. 19

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 ITA (TP)No.97/RJT/2016 and 2 Others 13 section 37(1) of the Act. He pointed out that the DRP had relied on various case laws in support of his finding as above. 19

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)

19-04-2023 Date of pronouncement : 25-04-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2019-20, arises from order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 09-11-2022, in proceedings under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has taken the following

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

disallowance of Rs.1,40,760/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has made short deduction of Rs.17,590/- and was liable for short deduction at Rs.4,050/- besides late payment interest of Rs.1,19

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

disallowance of Rs.1,40,760/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has made short deduction of Rs.17,590/- and was liable for short deduction at Rs.4,050/- besides late payment interest of Rs.1,19

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

19,59,975/- by the AO in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, the ITO-TDS issued show cause notice proposing A.Y. 2009-10 3 to hold the assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act, but no reply from the assessee was received. Therefore, the ITO-TDS in the absence

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 37(1) of the Act. The only basis being that the assessee was unable to establish necessity of incurring the expenses and benefit accrued to it, which has been outrightly ruled out by Courts for establishing commercial expediency of incurrence of the expenditure, the basis with Revenue authorities therefore for disallowing the impugned expenditure of Rs.1.60 crores

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

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee under Section 43B. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that DCIT vs. M/s. Eagle Motors Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2012-13 Rs. 32,19

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

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 of the case

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

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 of the case

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

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 of the case

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

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 of the case

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)

19-04-2023 Date of pronouncement : 25-04-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2019-20, arises from order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 31-10-2022, in proceedings under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has taken the following

SMT. NIRMALABEN V. PATEL,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1 , JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 14A of the Act are applicable to the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer, on the basis of material available on record, worked out the disallowance at Rs. 10,19

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 of expenses under ITA No.202/RJT/2024/AY.2018-19 Ban Labs Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT Section 14A r.w.r.8D of the Act, is concerned. However, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has issued the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 22.12.2020, which is placed at Paper Book Page No. 19

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

section 80IA(4) was disallowed by the Ld. Assessing Officer and also confirmed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). 11. Similarly, for assessment year 2006-07, return of income was filed on 13-11-2006 declaring total income of Rs. 48,19