CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT 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

disallowed, which is apparently a wrong claim and against the provisions of law as discussed above. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx “5. The arguments put forth by the assessee company have been carefully considered and a claim of the assessee has been thoroughly examined in the light of provisions of section 80IA(4) read with explanation inserted after sub section (13) of section

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

disallowed, which is apparently a wrong claim and against the provisions of law as discussed above. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx “5. The arguments put forth by the assessee company have been carefully considered and a claim of the assessee has been thoroughly examined in the light of provisions of section 80IA(4) read with explanation inserted after sub section (13) of section

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)

disallowed by the assessing officer. 12. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has deleted the addition made by the ACIT vs. Softel Machines Ltd. assessing officer, by accepting the additional evidences. The additional evidences were submitted by the assessee, during the appellate proceedings, before

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

disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company.” 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) discussed facts of each of the individual projects carried out by the assessee on merits, and based on the analysis of each of the projects, gave part relief to the assessee. The Department and the assessee are in appeal

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

disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company.” 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) discussed facts of each of the individual projects carried out by the assessee on merits, and based on the analysis of each of the projects, gave part relief to the assessee. The Department and the assessee are in appeal

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. 3,70,61,909/- u/s 80IA(4) in I.T.A Nos. 126 & 147/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No 3 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise Ltd. respect of following infrastructure projects undertaken by the appellant: Sr. No. of Name of the Project Amt. of deduction Project referred claimed u/s 80IA

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. 3,70,61,909/- u/s 80IA(4) in I.T.A Nos. 126 & 147/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No 3 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise Ltd. respect of following infrastructure projects undertaken by the appellant: Sr. No. of Name of the Project Amt. of deduction Project referred claimed u/s 80IA

MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallowed in view of the\nExplanation to the second proviso of section 24 of the Act which states\nthat -"Where the property has been acquired or constructed with\nborrowed capital, the interest, if any, payable on such capital borrowed\nfor the period prior to the previous year in which the property has been\nacquired or constructed shall be deducted under

LATE SMT. PRITI A. GANDHI L/R. SHRI ANILBHAI A. GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallowed in view of the\nExplanation to the second proviso of section 24 of the Act which states\nthat -"Where the property has been acquired or constructed with\nborrowed capital, the interest, if any, payable on such capital borrowed\nfor the period prior to the previous year in which the property has been\nacquired or constructed shall be deducted under

M/S CHANDRAKANT H. KAKKAD,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

disallowing the exemption of Rs. 35,07,459/- as the claimed under Section 54F of the Act by the assessee. The order is, thus, quashed. Hence, assessee's appeal is allowed. 7.1 In the case of CIT v Rajesh Kumar Jalan [2006] 157 Taxman 398 (Gauhati), the High Court on similar facts held that assessee is eligible for claiming deduction

GLOSSY CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the both the appeals (ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.454 & 455/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Glossy Ceramics Private Ltd. Vs. Assessment Unit 8 A, National Highway, Income Tax Department At Dhuva, Wankaner "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg3069P (Appellant) (Respondent)

202 3. Return of Income filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act NA 4. Variation in respect of issue of disallowance 95,30,010 4. That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. AO before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted on 18.01.2024 along with additional documents file furnished during the appellate

GLOSSY CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the both the appeals (ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.454 & 455/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Glossy Ceramics Private Ltd. Vs. Assessment Unit 8 A, National Highway, Income Tax Department At Dhuva, Wankaner "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg3069P (Appellant) (Respondent)

202 3. Return of Income filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act NA 4. Variation in respect of issue of disallowance 95,30,010 4. That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. AO before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted on 18.01.2024 along with additional documents file furnished during the appellate

KANATALAW SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,RAJKOT (AMRELI) vs. THE ITO WARD - 3 (1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.200 & 201/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2018-19 & 2019-20 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli बनाम/ Kanatalaw, Savarkundla, Vs Amreli - 364515 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfk8797L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Written Submission राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M

202 rjt of 2022 vide order dated 22 Feb 2023 (Copy enclosed). Hold in that even though return is not filled in time, deduction U/s.80P can not be disallowed and also that the ld CPC was not empowered to disallow deduction claimed U/s. 80 P only for the reason that return for A.Y. 2018-19 is not filed in time

KANATALAW SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,RAJKOT (AMRELI) vs. THE ITO WARD - 3 (1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.200 & 201/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2018-19 & 2019-20 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli बनाम/ Kanatalaw, Savarkundla, Vs Amreli - 364515 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfk8797L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Written Submission राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M

202 rjt of 2022 vide order dated 22 Feb 2023 (Copy enclosed). Hold in that even though return is not filled in time, deduction U/s.80P can not be disallowed and also that the ld CPC was not empowered to disallow deduction claimed U/s. 80 P only for the reason that return for A.Y. 2018-19 is not filed in time

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

SHRI KAMLESH DEORAJ JAIN,GANDHIDHAM KUTCHH vs. THE ITO WARD 1 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 62/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kamlesh Deoraj Jain Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Plot No 35-36, Devashish Gandhidham, Income Tax Vs. Sector-5 Gandhidham 370201 Office, Plot No.32, Sector No.3, Near Iffco Colony, Gandhidham-370 201 "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adopj1769Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

202/- which comes to Rs. 5,44,21,025/- was treated as un-explained credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s 115BBE and was added by the assessing officer to the income of assessee. Kamlesh Deoraj Jain 6. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned

ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GRENIC TILES PVT LTD, MORBI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

section\n68 of the Act.\n7.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the\nmatter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition\nmade by the assessing officer.The ld.CIT(A) noticed that once the overall\nexpenses are not disproportionate compared to earlier year and no specific\nitem has been pointed out which

GRENIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED,WANKANER-MORBI vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1) RKT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

section\n68 of the Act.\n7.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the\nmatter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition\nmade by the assessing officer.The ld.CIT(A) noticed that once the overall\nexpenses are not disproportionate compared to earlier year and no specific\nitem has been pointed out which