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

6 The taxpayer was requested to submit basis of segmental account along with supporting documentary evidence vide order sheet entry dated 21.11.2014. The taxpayer merely submitted copy of segmentals verified by M/s Mukund and Rohit Chartered Accountants who incidentally did not prepare the audited accounts of the taxpayer. The audited accounts which were prepared by M/s. A. Aneja and Company

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed deduction under section 80P on interest income of Rs. 42,28,962/- Appeal to the CIT(A)-3 did not bring any relief to the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s. 234 in absence of the specific instruction under the Assessment order, my kindly be deleted 4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed deduction under section 80P on interest income of Rs. 42,28,962/- Appeal to the CIT(A)-3 did not bring any relief to the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s. 234 in absence of the specific instruction under the Assessment order, my kindly be deleted 4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed deduction under section 80P on interest income of Rs. 42,28,962/- Appeal to the CIT(A)-3 did not bring any relief to the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s. 234 in absence of the specific instruction under the Assessment order, my kindly be deleted 4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred

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

section 43(5). It is immaterial whether transaction is carried out at the recognized stock exchange or not. Even the circular of CBDT cited in the assessment order states that once it is established that the assessee has entered in the transaction of the commodity that they deal the other technical details have no material impact. Hence, this reasoning

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.18,08,02,807/- 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.18,08,02,807/- is hereby disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company

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

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

6 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise Ltd. u/s. 80IA, even if it is an enterprise or undertaking as referred to in sub-section (1). The language of this Explanation makes it crystal clear that the benefit under sub-section (4) cannot be provided to a business referred to in sub-section (4) which

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

6 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise Ltd. u/s. 80IA, even if it is an enterprise or undertaking as referred to in sub-section (1). The language of this Explanation makes it crystal clear that the benefit under sub-section (4) cannot be provided to a business referred to in sub-section (4) which

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

6 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise Ltd. under sub-section (4) cannot be provided to a business referred to in sub-section (4) which is in the nature of works contract awarded by any person including the Central or State Government and executed by the undertaking or enterprise referred to in subsection (1). From the memorandum

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

6 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise Ltd. under sub-section (4) cannot be provided to a business referred to in sub-section (4) which is in the nature of works contract awarded by any person including the Central or State Government and executed by the undertaking or enterprise referred to in subsection (1). From the memorandum

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

SHRI ANISH HASAN BAKHAI,KESHOD vs. THE AO, WARD-1, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

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

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

220 Vs. PAN : CNWPB 2188 M : (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, ld.AR राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 27/01/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/04/2025 ORDER PERDR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment

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

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

220/- accepting returned income. 3.1. On perusal of assessment records for AY 2012-13, it is seen that as per the information, Director of Investigation, Kolkata conducted inquiries which unearthed some big syndicates involved in providing accommodation entries of long term capital gains and a total of 84 BSE listed penny stocks were identified. Thereafter, search and survey actions were

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

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

220/- accepting returned income. 3.1. On perusal of assessment records for AY 2012-13, it is seen that as per the information, Director of Investigation, Kolkata conducted inquiries which unearthed some big syndicates involved in providing accommodation entries of long term capital gains and a total of 84 BSE listed penny stocks were identified. Thereafter, search and survey actions were

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

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

220/- accepting returned income. 3.1. On perusal of assessment records for AY 2012-13, it is seen that as per the information, Director of Investigation, Kolkata conducted inquiries which unearthed some big syndicates involved in providing accommodation entries of long term capital gains and a total of 84 BSE listed penny stocks were identified. Thereafter, search and survey actions were