BHAVESH K. KOTHARI,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.50/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-2006

disallowance of the expenses for Rs. 89,346.00 claimed against the incentive bonus received by the assessee from the employer. The AO was of the view that the impugned amount of incentive bonus represents the salary income as provided under section 17 of the Act. Therefore, no deduction against such incentive bonus Asstt. Year 2005-06 11 can be provided

HARESHKUMAR L. UDESHI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.95/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009

disallowances made by the authorities below against the incentive bonus received by the assessee from LIC, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the authorities below. 22.2 We also note that there is no provision under the Act authorizing the assessee to claim the deduction against the incentive bonus which is part of the salary as provided

KLIN INDUSTRIES,SANDHA KHAMIDANA, JUNAGADH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

198/- imposed by the assessing officer. 5.Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Shri R.B. Shah, Learned Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that penalty notice issued by the assessing officer under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, is vague and defective as no limb of either concealment of income

THE ITO, WARD-4,, MORBI vs. M/S RAIYANI COTTON INDUSTRIES,, MORBI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No. 129/Rjt/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12)

Section 40A(3) in respect of the cash purchases of kapas from four persons namely Kanjibhai Lavjibhai –HUF, Arvindbhia Kanjibhai –HUF, Jivrajbhai Lavjibhai and Keshavjibhai Lavjibhai-HUF to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/-, Rs. 1,15,000/-, Rs. 1,40,000/- and Rs. 1,20,000/- respectively. The Ld. AO disallowed the same. However

THE ACIT GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM vs. SOFTEL MACHINES LIMITED , GANDHIDHAM ( KUTCH)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

198/-. The assessee is mainly engaged in manufacturing and trading of kitchen appliances and consumers durables. The assessee`s case was taken up for compulsory manual scrutiny and a notice under section 143(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 was issued on 24.09.2017 and was duly served upon through ITBA email facility. Thereafter, a notice

BACKBONE ENTERPRISE LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 9,06,190/- u/s 80IA(4) in respect of following infrastructure projects undertaken by the appellant: Sr. No. of Name of Project Amt. of deduction claimed Project u/s 80IA (in Rs.) referred by CIT (Appeals) 1 Bhavnagar Irrigation 707,354 I.T.A Nos. 129 & 150/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 Backbone Enterprise

THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 9,06,190/- u/s 80IA(4) in respect of following infrastructure projects undertaken by the appellant: Sr. No. of Name of Project Amt. of deduction claimed Project u/s 80IA (in Rs.) referred by CIT (Appeals) 1 Bhavnagar Irrigation 707,354 I.T.A Nos. 129 & 150/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 Backbone Enterprise

THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. TARABEN VRUJLAL MEHTA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION TRUST,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 32 on the same asset. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation of Rs.55,32,155/-and assessed the income at Rs.(-) 4,34,17,907/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that as regards ground

THE DCIT, (INTL. TAXN.), RAJKOT vs. M/S. KOREA SOUTH EAST POWER CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit (Intl. Taxn.) M/S.Korea South East Power Amruta Estate Co.Ltd. Room No.312 Mg Road बनाम/ C/O. P.V. Page & Co., Girnar Cinema 201, Sardar Griha, 198 L.T. Marg Vs. Rajkot Mumbai – 400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Pan : Ahvps 3555Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

198 L.T. Marg Vs. Rajkot Mumbai – 400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: PAN : AHVPS 3555Q Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 25/09/2023 Date of Pronouncement 15/12/2023 आदेश/ O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed the claim of the assessee. 5 A.Y. 2016-17 and 4 others 7.1 Besides the above, the AO noted that the loss from the share trading activity was computed under the provisions of section 44AF of the Act. Admittedly, under the provisions of section 44AF of the Act, income is calculated of an assessee engaged in retail trade equal

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed the claim of the assessee. 5 A.Y. 2016-17 and 4 others 7.1 Besides the above, the AO noted that the loss from the share trading activity was computed under the provisions of section 44AF of the Act. Admittedly, under the provisions of section 44AF of the Act, income is calculated of an assessee engaged in retail trade equal

SHRI MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN ,GANDHIDHAM vs. THEACIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed the claim of the assessee. 5 A.Y. 2016-17 and 4 others 7.1 Besides the above, the AO noted that the loss from the share trading activity was computed under the provisions of section 44AF of the Act. Admittedly, under the provisions of section 44AF of the Act, income is calculated of an assessee engaged in retail trade equal

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed the claim of the assessee. 5 A.Y. 2016-17 and 4 others 7.1 Besides the above, the AO noted that the loss from the share trading activity was computed under the provisions of section 44AF of the Act. Admittedly, under the provisions of section 44AF of the Act, income is calculated of an assessee engaged in retail trade equal

THE ITO, WARD-3(2),, JAMNAGAR vs. SHRI RAJESH GULABRAI SHAYANI,, JAM-KHAMBHALIA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

198 kgs ground nut. Thus, it shows that there was loss in process of 2,16,892 kgs. Besides, the assessee has again shown shortage in ground nut husk of 1,62,113 kgs. Once the assessee has shown shortage in the process, the further claim of shortage, though made in husk, is not acceptable. The assessee has deliberately shown

JAYESH KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

disallowed the claim of capital gains on a penny stock company. IV. The PCIT also relied upon the ITAT Delhi bench in the case of Anip Rastogi [ITA No. 3809/DEL/2018 AV 2015-16 and ITAT Nagpur in the case of Shri Sanjay Bimalchand Jain ITA No. 61/Nag/2013 dated 18/07/2016 | appeal of the assessee dismissed in Bombay High Court) where

BHANUBEN MANSUKHLAL KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

disallowed the claim of capital gains on a penny stock company. IV. The PCIT also relied upon the ITAT Delhi bench in the case of Anip Rastogi [ITA No. 3809/DEL/2018 AV 2015-16 and ITAT Nagpur in the case of Shri Sanjay Bimalchand Jain ITA No. 61/Nag/2013 dated 18/07/2016 | appeal of the assessee dismissed in Bombay High Court) where

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

disallowed the claim of capital gains on a penny stock company. IV. The PCIT also relied upon the ITAT Delhi bench in the case of Anip Rastogi [ITA No. 3809/DEL/2018 AV 2015-16 and ITAT Nagpur in the case of Shri Sanjay Bimalchand Jain ITA No. 61/Nag/2013 dated 18/07/2016 | appeal of the assessee dismissed in Bombay High Court) where

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

disallowed the claim of capital gains on a penny stock company. IV. The PCIT also relied upon the ITAT Delhi bench in the case of Anip Rastogi [ITA No. 3809/DEL/2018 AV 2015-16 and ITAT Nagpur in the case of Shri Sanjay Bimalchand Jain ITA No. 61/Nag/2013 dated 18/07/2016 | appeal of the assessee dismissed in Bombay High Court) where

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2), RAJKOT , RAJKOT

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Jilla Bank Bhavan, Kasturba Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Opp. Chaudhary High School, Road, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afups2094H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 06/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Office [(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 30.03.2023 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

disallowance of provision Rs. 60 Lakh made for standard assets attendance fund. Since, this ground not pressed during the course of argument. Hence, we do not adjudicate Ground No. 1 the Ground No. 1 has dismissed. (ii) Ground No 2 deal with an amount of Rs. 25,00,00,000/- transferred from bad and doubtful debts provision for rural Page