AMBARADI SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,AMBARADI , DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT(CPC), BANGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

197, 204 & 203/RJT/2022 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (for all) Page 5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance

DHARESHWAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. ,VILLAGE: - DHARESHWAR, TALUKA: - RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

197, 204 & 203/RJT/2022 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (for all) Page 5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance

AMRUTPUR SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,VILLAGE: - AMRUTPUR TALUKA DHARI, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

197, 204 & 203/RJT/2022 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (for all) Page 5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, JUNAGADH vs. M/S KESHODWALA FOODS., VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1133/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08) D.C.I.T, बनाम/ M/S Keshodwala Foods, Circle-1, 305-G.I.D.C. Industrial Vs. Junagadh. Estate, Somnath Road, Veraval. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfk6651Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ranjit Singh Cit. D.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 16/06/2010, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 08/12/2009 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2007- 08. A.Y. 2007-08 The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowed uls 40(ia). 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Rajkot has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,69,502/- on account of unpaid liabilities uls 41(1). 4. The Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Rajkot has erred in law and on facts in partly deleting the addition on account of car & motor bike

THE ITO, WARD 1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S PAVAN CONSTRUCTION CO, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

197 expenses Transport expenses 62,42,079 2% 1,24,822 Total 4,71,17,202 11,27,543 The above disallowances were added to the total income of the assessee. 82. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the ld. CIT-A submitted as under: “(b) As submitted earlier, the appellant executing civil

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.376/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Circle-3(1), Vs. Gopalnaga, Opp. Andh Mahila Rajkot. Vikas Gruh, Rajkot.

197/-By no stretch of imagination can Section 14A or Rule 3D be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in Section 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure "incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income" This proportion

M/S WESTERN INDIA CERAMICS P. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, ground number 4 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

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

1,20,000/-. Moreover, two parties furnished certificate under section 197 of the Act for a lower rate of TDS on rent. Accordingly, the assessee has correctly deducted TDS on rental payments as above. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “6.3 After considering the facts of the case and remand report

SMT. ILLABEN JAYANTKUMAR DOSHI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.124/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13

1,43,61,183/- earning interest at lower rates than the interest paid YOU on loans. Since the investment in FDRs was not your business, excessive interest paid on the relevant loans was liable to be disallowed u/s. 36(l)(iii)of the Act. 3.2. It is further noticed that you had earned exempt income in the form of dividend

M/S. ICONIC INFRABUILD LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT- CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2015-16 Iconic Infrabuild Llp The Pr.Cit, Central 75, Nandkishor Ahmedabad. University Road Gangotri Park Opp: Bts, Rajkot. Pan : Aaifc 5100 F (Applicant) (Responent)

1. The Hon'ble Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Ahmedabad has erred in passing the order u/s. 263 of the I T Act is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The Hon'ble Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Ahmedabad has erred in setting aside the issues of addition of new sundry creditors of Rs.3

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRC;E-2, RAJKOT vs. CHETAN NANDLAL SANGANI, RAJKOT

section 142(1) of the Act, along with detailed questionnaire, which is reproduced by the assessing officer, in the assessment order, vide, page number 4 to 31. 7. In response to the above notice of the assessing officer, the assessee submitted its reply, before the assessing officer, which is reproduced below: “With reference to the ongoing assessment proceedings u/s, 153A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT vs. CHETAN NANDLAL SANGANI, RAJKOT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248 & 249/Rjt/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner Of Chetan Nandlal Sangani Income Tax, Central Circle– Vs. 309, Shalin Complex, 2, Madhavi Chowk, Soni Rajkot, “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Bazar, Rajkot-360 001 Floor, Mg Road, Rajko-360 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amvps 5788 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 142(1) of the Act, along with detailed questionnaire, which is reproduced by the assessing officer, in the assessment order, vide, page number 4 to 31. 7. In response to the above notice of the assessing officer, the assessee submitted its reply, before the assessing officer, which is reproduced below: “With reference to the ongoing assessment proceedings u/s, 153A