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

disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80 IA(4) of the Act. 6. In appeal, the assessee challenged the validity of assessment framed under section 153A of the Act on the ground that at the time of search no incriminating documents were found so as to hold that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section

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

disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80 IA(4) of the Act. 6. In appeal, the assessee challenged the validity of assessment framed under section 153A of the Act on the ground that at the time of search no incriminating documents were found so as to hold that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under 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

disallowing the claim of the assessee under section 80IA of the Act. The basis of additions apparently may be inferred from the below observations made by Ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment order “Hence, the underlying principle of these decisions is that a claim wrongly allowed previously could be and should be set right in subsequent assessments and limiting

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

disallowing the claim of the assessee under section 80IA of the Act. The basis of additions apparently may be inferred from the below observations made by Ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment order “Hence, the underlying principle of these decisions is that a claim wrongly allowed previously could be and should be set right in subsequent assessments and limiting

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

disallowing the claim of the assessee under section 80IA of the Act. The basis of additions apparently may be inferred from the below observations made by Ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment order “Hence, the underlying principle of these decisions is that a claim wrongly allowed previously could be and should be set right in subsequent assessments and limiting

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

disallowing the claim of the assessee under section 80IA of the Act. The basis of additions apparently may be inferred from the below observations made by Ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment order “Hence, the underlying principle of these decisions is that a claim wrongly allowed previously could be and should be set right in subsequent assessments and limiting

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for Assessment

disallowed deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 3,95,76, 721/-. Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the search action is without jurisdiction since it is not in dispute that at the time of search, no incriminating material was found in relation to this year

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)

211/- as Bogus Salary and Wages Expenses. The above disallowances/additions were required to be made under section 68 being unexplained sundry creditors and 69C being unexplained/bogus expenditure respectively. Therefore, the provisions of section 115BBE on the above addition / disallowance

ASHOKKUMAR PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,PORBANDAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appear of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.83/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Ashokkumar Projects India P. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Manek Centre, P.N. Cholera Arcade, M.G. Road Opposite, Bhaveshwar Mahadev Marg, Jamnagar - 361008 Temple, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamca5891Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

disallowed under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act, by the assessing officer. Therefore,the order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, hance, ld. PCIT directed the assessing officer to frame the fresh assessment order. 8.Aggrieved by the order of the ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.185/Rjt/2023

section 263 of the Act, is an appealable order before the ITAT (Tribunal). Therefore, because of the mistake of the tax consultant of the assessee, the delay of 331 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal has caused, for that assessee should not be penalized. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that delay of 331 days in filing, the appeal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee both are dismissed

disallowed the claim of loss on account of absolescene of stock of fish to the amount of Rs. 3,88,28,010/- stating that valuation shown by the assessee on the basis of stock or net realizing value cannot be accepted on the basis of evidence available on local sale account. It is brought to our notice that assessee

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT vs. M/S. BILESHWAR KHAND UDHYOG KHEDUT SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD., KODINAR, KODINAR, DIST. GIR - SOMNATH

In the result Ground No. 3 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

211/-” Ground No. 1 of the Department’s appeal:- CIT(A) erred in deleting disallowance of expenditure of construction of statue amounting to Rs. 6,24,128/-. 3. The brief facts in relation to this ground of appeal are that the assessee had claimed expenditure of Rs. 6,24,128/- for erecting statue of late Shri R. N. Wala, founder

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year :2012-13 Dcit, Cir.1(1) M/S.Aryan Arcade P.Ltd. Rajkot. Vs C/O. Milestone Property Mg Basement Grant Central Mall Rajkot.

disallowed by the AO, he contended. 8. The ld.counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, countered by pointing out that this issue has already been dealt in a number of decisions by courts, wherein it has been categorically held that section 24(b) nowhere restricts or excludes the claim of interest paid on loans taken for repaying the original

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

HARUNBHAI NOORMAMD JINDANI,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(7), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 407/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Harunbhai Noormamd Jindani The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(7), Kishan Chowk, Behind Bodyg, Vs. Jamnagar-Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar - 361001 Jamnagar-361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anxpj4114C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 20.09.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 144 Of The Act, On 11.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

211 days by holding as under: "3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the considered opinion that assessee was under a bona fide belief that the impugned order of Pr. CIT was not appealable before this Tribunal since they were

SHRI VASANT VASHRAMBHAI SAPOVADIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX,CIR-3,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

211(1)/2009 (Ethics)/ 55667 dated 10 December 2009 has prohibited the medical practitioner/ their representatives and family members from accepting any travel facility inside or outside the country from any pharmaceutical/allied healthcare industry for a vacation or for attending conference, seminars, workshops etc as delegate. Vasant Vashrambhai Sapovadia vs. ACIT Asst.Year – 2010-11 ii. The CBDT in its circular

RAMESHBHAI KHIMJIBHAI TANK,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(3), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.202/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 20.02.2023, which in turn arises out of an order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act on 05.12.2018. 2. Appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016–17, is barred

SHIV GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

211 days by holding as under: "3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the considered opinion that assessee was under a bona fide belief that the impugned order of Pr. CIT ITA N o. 595/RJT/2024