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

disallowed which was, in turn, confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal before us. 25. We have heard the submissions made by the respective parties. We have also perused the relevant materials available on record. ITA Nos.27/RJT/2016& 360,315/Rjt/2015 A.Y.2011-12,2012-13 It is the case of the assessee that the advance paid to the said Manjeet

M/S. SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. ,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DCIT, SURENDRANAGR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

Section clearly states that the deduction is available only to a primary society. Thus, the appellant is clearly not eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80P(2)(b) which has been rightly disallowed by the AO. 4.2.4 The appellant has also argued that the said deduction has been claimed by it and also allowed in the earlier assessment years and therefore

THE ITO, WARD-2(2),, JAMNAGAR vs. SMT. SHITALBEN SAURABH VORA,, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

Section clearly states that the deduction is available only to a primary society. Thus, the appellant is clearly not eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80P(2)(b) which has been rightly disallowed by the AO. 4.2.4 The appellant has also argued that the said deduction has been claimed by it and also allowed in the earlier assessment years and therefore

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)

disallowance of sundry creditors and of bogus expenditure made by the Assessing Officer could not have been made u/s. 68 or section 69C of the Act respectively as contended before the Ld. PCIT and therefore the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act were not attracted. (ii) Even otherwise, the case of the ld. PCIT was only with respect

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance in the assessment proceedings; Hence, such ‘illegal cash payment transactions” is added and abetted by the assessee and his associates whereby the purchaser deposits the differential cash amount in the bank a/c of the assessee. The assessee is contacted by the seller about the said deposit or informed by the purchaser about it. The assessee verifies the deposits

DINESHCHANDRA N. SHAH,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5),, JAMNAGAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of the expenses of Rs 24,612/- we note that none of the deduction claimed by the assessee has been held as false. Thus at the most, the claim made by the assessee can be wrong/inaccurate claims which cannot be treated as concealment/inaccurate particular of income. In holding so we find support and guide from the judgment

THE DCIT, (INTL. TAXN.), RAJKOT vs. M/S. KOREA SOUTH EAST POWER CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit (Intl. Taxn.) M/S.Korea South East Power Amruta Estate Co.Ltd. Room No.312 Mg Road बनाम/ C/O. P.V. Page & Co., Girnar Cinema 201, Sardar Griha, 198 L.T. Marg Vs. Rajkot Mumbai – 400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Pan : Ahvps 3555Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

disallowance of Assessment year 1999-2000 - Assessee claimed premium received on redemption of debentures as income from capital gains - Assessing Officer held that said premium was assessable to tax under head income from other sources Thereupon he also levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on assessee Tribunal deleted penalty on plea that there was only a change of head

BHARAT NARSHIBHAI PATEL,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us.

disallowance. Indeed the said provision though inserted by the Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1-4-2013 but the same has been held to be retrospective in operation by recent judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. (2015) 61 taxmann.com 45 (Del) wherein the question raised before

M/S RUDRAKSH DETERGENT & CHEMICAL PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 154 of the Act, which caused delay in filing the appeal. The learned AR in support of his contention also filed the affidavit of the director of the assessee company which is placed on record. Accordingly the learned AR prayed before us for the condonation of the delay. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR considering the reasons

M/S. GUPTA GLOBAL EXIM PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

disallowances of interest expenses amounting to " 1,80,000 and determined the gross profit at the rate of 3% in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act. However, the ITAT restricted the addition of the GP to the extent of 2% of the turnover amounting to " 1,11,79,287.00 and deleted the addition made

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S TIRTH AGRO TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.,, GONDAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

section 131(1) have confirmed that they provided services of job work, received charges based on competitive ITA No. 414/Rjt/15 [DCIT vs. M/s. Tirth Agro Technology Pvt. Ltd.] A.Y. 2012-13 - 12 - market rate and offered the same for the taxation. The learned CIT (A) further given the finding that the there was no evidence brought by the Revenue suggesting

THE ACIT, MORBI CIRCLE,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. VISHALDEEP SPINNING MILLA LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, I.T.A No. 162/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2007-08 Page No 2 M/s. Vishaldeep Spinning Mills Ltd. vs. ITO 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2007-08. 2. The solitary and effective ground raised by the Revenue is the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting

SHRI SHANTILAL MALTIPORT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,JAMNAGAR. vs. THE ASST. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX & THE ITO-TDS-CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, ITA No.275/Rjt/2018 is allowed for statistical purposes whereas

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roy)

disallowance of claim of credit of surcharge and education cess against the tax calculated on regular income of the appellant. In view of these facts, it is held that no appeal lies with the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act of the appellant and therefore, the ground of appeal of the .appellant as reproduced in initial paragraph

M/S OM KIRTI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roy)

disallowance of interest payment of Rs. 14,40,475 to 1C1CI bank made by the A.O. by treating it as personal expenditure. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,28,990/- made by the assessing officer by way of unexplained investment in jewellery. 5.The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals