M/S. D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

24. The sole ground of the assessee in this appeal relates to the confirmation of disallowance of bad debt/forfeiture of advance of Rs. 60,07,108/-. The assessee prays otherwise. The brief facts leading to the issue is this that during the course of assessment proceeding, upon verification of the copies of accounts of the parties it was found that

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

24. The sole ground of the assessee in this appeal relates to the confirmation of disallowance of bad debt/forfeiture of advance of Rs. 60,07,108/-. The assessee prays otherwise. The brief facts leading to the issue is this that during the course of assessment proceeding, upon verification of the copies of accounts of the parties it was found that

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S DML EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

24. The sole ground of the assessee in this appeal relates to the confirmation of disallowance of bad debt/forfeiture of advance of Rs. 60,07,108/-. The assessee prays otherwise. The brief facts leading to the issue is this that during the course of assessment proceeding, upon verification of the copies of accounts of the parties it was found that

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

disallowance proposed by the AO, applying section 37(1) of the Act and also section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for the purpose of holding that the assessee was liable to withhold the tax in terms of Treaty with Finland. The DRP took a different view as opposed to that taken by the AO holding that the impugned amount

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

disallowance proposed by the AO, applying section 37(1) of the Act and also section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for the purpose of holding that the assessee was liable to withhold the tax in terms of Treaty with Finland. The DRP took a different view as opposed to that taken by the AO holding that the impugned amount

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

disallowance proposed by the AO, applying section 37(1) of the Act and also section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for the purpose of holding that the assessee was liable to withhold the tax in terms of Treaty with Finland. The DRP took a different view as opposed to that taken by the AO holding that the impugned amount

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. SAURASHTRA CEMENT LTD.,, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

24. As regards ground no.7, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) was not right in deleting the disallowance of Rs.11,34,064/- out of license/registration fees made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. DR submitted that the company’s business is of manufacture and sale of cement and clinkers. Therefore, membership fee paid to Indian Energy Exchange Limited

SAURASHTA CEMENT LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

24. As regards ground no.7, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) was not right in deleting the disallowance of Rs.11,34,064/- out of license/registration fees made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. DR submitted that the company’s business is of manufacture and sale of cement and clinkers. Therefore, membership fee paid to Indian Energy Exchange Limited

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

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 437/Rjt/2018 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Ahlstrom Munksjo Vs. D.C.I.T, Fibercomposites(India) Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham Circle, Mundra Sez Integrated Textile & Gandhidham. Apparel Park (Mitap), Plot No.07, Survey No.141, Mundra, Kutch-370421. Pan: Aagca9137M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, C.I.T Dr सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2023 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The appellant prays that the addition made by the Learned AO in relation to the disallowance of reimbursement of bank guarantee commission be deleted. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think

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

M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the LT. Act, 1961.\n(3). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of interest on\ndelayed payment of TDS amounting to Rs. 57,298/-.\n(4). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition amounting to Rs.\n25,35,850/- on account of difference in receipts

SHRI SAILESHBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI HIRPARA,JETPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 59/Rjt/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Shri Saileshbhai The Deputy बनाम/ Shambhubhai Hirpara Commissioner Of Income Vs. C/O. Nishan Export, Tax Dhoraji Road, Jetpur, Circle-1(2), Rajkot Rajkot - 360370 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeph3006R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : None Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, ""यथ" क" ओर से / Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 23/08/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 30/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.01.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Rajkot (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2018 Passed By The Dc/Ac, Circle-1(2), Rajkot Under Section

section 10(24), the same does form part of the total income under the prevision of the Act namely in the case of the partnership firm of Nisan Export. The legislature has made it very clear while the provision that it is only such income on which tax is not payable by anybody or at any stage that the corresponding

ALIUDEPUR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,ALIUDEPUR VILLAGE, TALUKA LATHI, DIST.: - AMRELI-365430 vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

24-02-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These three appeals are filed by different Assessees as against the three separate Appellate orders dated 13.09.2022, 08.10.2022 and 23.09.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “NFAC”), as against the Intimations passed under section

SHREE ANTALIYA KHETI VIKAS KARYAKARI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,LILIYA MOTA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

24-02-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These three appeals are filed by different Assessees as against the three separate Appellate orders dated 13.09.2022, 08.10.2022 and 23.09.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “NFAC”), as against the Intimations passed under section

DAHIDA SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED ,VILLAGE: - DAHIDA, DIST.:- AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

24-02-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These three appeals are filed by different Assessees as against the three separate Appellate orders dated 13.09.2022, 08.10.2022 and 23.09.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “NFAC”), as against the Intimations passed under section

M/S. SHIVABYAY PROJECT PVT. LTD. ,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

24-11-2017, in proceedings under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “The grounds of appeal mentioned herein under are without prejudice to each other. 1.0 Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-l, Rajkot has erred in law in confirming the disallowance

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S. SHIVABYAY PROJECT PVT. LTD. , GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

24-11-2017, in proceedings under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “The grounds of appeal mentioned herein under are without prejudice to each other. 1.0 Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-l, Rajkot has erred in law in confirming the disallowance

SHRI GIRISHKUMAR VACHHRAJ DHOLAKIA,,JUNAGADH vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 14/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Jugalkishore Natwarlal Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abqpd 2710 D आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 15/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Girishkumar Vachhraj Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abupd 6245 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Jani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy:-

disallowance and ITA Nos. 14 & 15/Rjt/2021 Assessee : Jugalkishore N Dholakia & Girishkumar Vachhraj Dholakia AY : 2015-16 2 applicability of Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") upon declaring it erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue under Section 263 of the Act for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Since