AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

section 37(1) of the Act. 20. With regard to his contention on the nature of services received by virtue of these expenses being established to the AO, he drew our attention to the facts noted by the DRP inits order as reproduced above vis-à-vis these expenses, and pointed out that the payment for management

AHLSTROM FIBERCOMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

section 37(1) of the Act. 20. With regard to his contention on the nature of services received by virtue of these expenses being established to the AO, he drew our attention to the facts noted by the DRP inits order as reproduced above vis-à-vis these expenses, and pointed out that the payment for management

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

section 37(1) of the Act. 20. With regard to his contention on the nature of services received by virtue of these expenses being established to the AO, he drew our attention to the facts noted by the DRP inits order as reproduced above vis-à-vis these expenses, and pointed out that the payment for management

ALIDAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,GIR SOMNATH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, VERAVAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -3 Rajkot has erred in law dismissing appeals ex-parte by alleging that the appellant is not interested in put suit the appeal, though the appellant filed written submission on 26/09/2017 in the office of the ld. CIT(A)-3 Rajkot. The deduction u/s.80P of the Act totally disallowing unjustified on facts

ALIADAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,GIR SOMNATH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, , VERAVAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -3 Rajkot has erred in law dismissing appeals ex-parte by alleging that the appellant is not interested in put suit the appeal, though the appellant filed written submission on 26/09/2017 in the office of the ld. CIT(A)-3 Rajkot. The deduction u/s.80P of the Act totally disallowing unjustified on facts

ALIDAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,GIR SOMNATH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, VERAVAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -3 Rajkot has erred in law dismissing appeals ex-parte by alleging that the appellant is not interested in put suit the appeal, though the appellant filed written submission on 26/09/2017 in the office of the ld. CIT(A)-3 Rajkot. The deduction u/s.80P of the Act totally disallowing unjustified on facts

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

220,81,913 45.00 27,000 45.00 27,000 Copper Zirconium 145.00 58,290 290.00 1,16,580 Chromium Metal 36.00 31,860 45.00 39,825 Bismuth Zinc 11,965.85 14,75,629 32,174.05 35,88,694 Manganese 969.50 1,58,029 153.90 21,084 Copper Phosphorus 40,950 617.80 2,12,999 90.00 Copper Tellurium 38.40 2

M/S. PATEL BRASS WORKS PVT. LTD. ,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE-5, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. 4. The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and during appellate proceedings, the assessee has not controverted the fact that deduction u/s 80IA was not claimed in the return of income, and that revised return of income was not filed within the stipulated time

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

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

2) of section 263 of the Act, the order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, if the order is passed Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 without making inquiries or verification of the information

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

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

2) of section 263 of the Act, the order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, if the order is passed Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 without making inquiries or verification of the information

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

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

2) of section 263 of the Act, the order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, if the order is passed Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 without making inquiries or verification of the information

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

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

2) of section 263 of the Act, the order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, if the order is passed Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 without making inquiries or verification of the information

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

section 80IA(4) of the Act is to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. Hence, the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s.80IA(4) amounting to Rs. 29,98,51,142/- is hereby disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company

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

section 80IA(4) of the Act is to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. Hence, the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s.80IA(4) amounting to Rs. 29,98,51,142/- is hereby disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company

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

section 80IA(4) of the Act is to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. Hence, the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s.80IA(4) amounting to Rs. 10,55,85,316/- is hereby disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company

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

section 80IA(4) of the Act is to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. Hence, the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s.80IA(4) amounting to Rs. 10,55,85,316/- is hereby disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company

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

section 80IA(4) of the Act is to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. Hence, the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s.80IA(4) amounting to Rs.13,46,89,674/- is hereby disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company

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

section 80IA(4) of the Act is to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. Hence, the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s.80IA(4) amounting to Rs.13,46,89,674/- is hereby disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company