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

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

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

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

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

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

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

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

ITO WARD 3(1)(4), RAJKOT-STATION- AMRELI, AMRELI, GUJARAT vs. AVADH AGRI EXPORTS, AMRELI, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

disallowances to be made on these issues. The assessee further stated that the Page 3 of 20 ITA No.816/Rjt/2025 -AY 2012-13 ITO vs. Avadh Agri Exports non-resident companies were not having their permanent establishment. Hence, even if the commission had been received by the non-residents on account of the business connections mentioned in section

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

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

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 1534 of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur v. Assistant Commissioner of Income

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

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

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 1534 of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur v. Assistant Commissioner of Income

VIJUBHA JITUBHA JADEJA,RAJKOT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowance of sundry creditors and of bogus expenditure made by the Assessing Officer could not have been made u/s. 68 or section 69C of the Act respectively as contended before the Ld. PCIT and therefore the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act were not attracted. (ii) Even otherwise, the case of the ld. PCIT was only with respect

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S AKSHAR METALS,, JAMNAGAR

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.246/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 & अपील सं./Ita No.161/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 A.C.I.T., M/S Akshar Metals, Circle-3, Vs. Geetanjali, Jamnagar. Summair Club Road, 2, Hathi Colony, Jamnagar. Pan: Aapfa6505K

191 ITR 2881 has held In the context of provisions of section 8QJ that, even if some members of the staff were common to the old and new unit. It will not be a bar on the eligibility or deduction under section 80J. (iv) The appellant firm has submitted details of raw material used by it as well as AMPL

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, JAMNAGAR vs. AKSHAR METALS,, JAMNAGAR

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.246/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 & अपील सं./Ita No.161/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 A.C.I.T., M/S Akshar Metals, Circle-3, Vs. Geetanjali, Jamnagar. Summair Club Road, 2, Hathi Colony, Jamnagar. Pan: Aapfa6505K

191 ITR 2881 has held In the context of provisions of section 8QJ that, even if some members of the staff were common to the old and new unit. It will not be a bar on the eligibility or deduction under section 80J. (iv) The appellant firm has submitted details of raw material used by it as well as AMPL

PRANAM ENTERPRISE,JUNAGADH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.391/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pranam Enterprise Vs. The Dcit Office No.3, City Centre, Opp. Circle-1(1), Rajkot New Collector Office, Junagadh – 362001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffp7926H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

section 80IB(10) of the Act, should be allowed to him, because, assessee has been allowed same deduction in the previous year, whereas, as per the opinion of the assessing officer, since certain conditions were not fulfilled, by the assessee, therefore, assessing officer disallowed the deductionu/s.80IB(10) of the Act, in the assessment year under consideration. On the basis

SHRI SHAMJIBHAI JIVABHAI BALASARA,MADHAPAR VILLAGE, BHUJ-KUTCH vs. THE ITO WARD-1,, BHUJ-KUTCH

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 225/Rjt/2022 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Year:2014-2015

191 ITR 667/59 Taxman 11 (SC), where the hon'ble apex court has observed as under (page 673) : "The terms of section 40A(3) are not absolute. Consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors are not excluded. Genuine and bona fide transactions are not taken out of the sweep of the section. It is open to the assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

disallowance of loss incurred by the assessee on hedging of copper scrap imports of Rs 1,52,76,370/- against the income of the appellant considering the said loss as speculative loss. 3.1 The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a private limited company and engaged in business of manufacturing of copper and copper

KUMAR RAMESH SAHU,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

disallowed u/s 68 by Ld. AO in the assessment order.” 4.1. Ld. CIT (A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee order dated 30.08.2023, according to Ld. CIT (A), the appellant failed to explain the discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer during the course of remand proceedings. Hence, the additions made in respect of unsecured loan/gifts

M/S. SEASTEM LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 301/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2010-2011 Seastem Ltd., D.C.I.T., First Floor, Vs. Circle-1, Royal Corner, Jamnagar. Dr. Yagnik Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aahcs9428G

disallowed and added to the total income. 5. However, the assessee filed an objection on the reopening of the case, which was disposed off by the AO vide separate order dated 16-06-2017 against the assessee. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT(A). A.Y. 2010-11 3 7. The assessee before the learned

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these\nbank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true &\ncorrect. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these\ntransactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts,\nthere is no other evidence to decide the income

PARAS RAMESHCHANDRA DOSHI,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT - 1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

section 263 of the Act shall tantamount to change\nof opinion which would not be covered under the revisionary powers of Sec.\n263. Reliance is placed upon following judicial pronouncements in support\nof contentions of the Assessee that when due inquiries are made u/s 263\ncannot be invoked:\na. In the case of Pr. CIT vs M/s Shreeji Prints

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)

section 263 of the Act in a limited scrutiny case where the ACIT, Circle 1(1), RKT has discharged his obligations as per the Instructions of CBDT vide F.No. 225/402/2018/ITA.II dated 28th November 2018. (6) The orders of the learned PCIT is illegal, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice. (7) Without prejudice to the above your petitioner craves