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

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

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

26 ITA (TP)No.97/RJT/2016 and 2 Others 27 32. He further drew our attention to the order of the DRP pointing out that the DRP had not even dealt with submissions made by the assessee before it. 33. On the issue of disallowance of bank guarantee commission expenses made under section

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

26 ITA (TP)No.97/RJT/2016 and 2 Others 27 32. He further drew our attention to the order of the DRP pointing out that the DRP had not even dealt with submissions made by the assessee before it. 33. On the issue of disallowance of bank guarantee commission expenses made under section

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

26 ITA (TP)No.97/RJT/2016 and 2 Others 27 32. He further drew our attention to the order of the DRP pointing out that the DRP had not even dealt with submissions made by the assessee before it. 33. On the issue of disallowance of bank guarantee commission expenses made under section

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

Section 41(1) of the Act as not allowed earlier under any provisions of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chetan Chemicals Private Limited 267 ITR 770. A.Ys. 2010-11 11 We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available

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

Section 41(1) of the Act as not allowed earlier under any provisions of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chetan Chemicals Private Limited 267 ITR 770. A.Ys. 2010-11 11 We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available

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

26-12-2008. Subsequently, a search action under section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of the assessee company and on 24-06-2010, disallowing

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

26-12-2008. Subsequently, a search action under section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of the assessee company and on 24-06-2010, disallowing

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

26-12-2008. Subsequently, a search action under section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of the assessee company and on 24-06-2010, disallowing

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

26-12-2008. Subsequently, a search action under section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of the assessee company and on 24-06-2010, disallowing

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:

disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act and held not to have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. The reason being that the assessee was unable to establish the business necessity for incurring these expenses and also demonstrating benefit derived by the assessee from the same. The factum of incurrence

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

26 Agreement for Road Repairing only. I.T.A Nos. 216, 217, 203 & 211/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page No 4 M/s Classic Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. M/s. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. 28 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 29 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 30 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 31 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 32 Agreement

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

26 Agreement for Road Repairing only. I.T.A Nos. 216, 217, 203 & 211/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page No 4 M/s Classic Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. M/s. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. 28 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 29 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 30 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 31 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 32 Agreement

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

26 Agreement for Road Repairing only. I.T.A Nos. 216, 217, 203 & 211/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page No 4 M/s Classic Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. M/s. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. 28 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 29 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 30 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 31 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 32 Agreement

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

26 Agreement for Road Repairing only. I.T.A Nos. 216, 217, 203 & 211/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page No 4 M/s Classic Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. M/s. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. 28 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 29 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 30 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 31 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 32 Agreement

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.376/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Circle-3(1), Vs. Gopalnaga, Opp. Andh Mahila Rajkot. Vikas Gruh, Rajkot.

26-11-2008 In a recent review of assessment of Banks carried out by C&AG, it has been observed that while computing the income of banks under the head 'Profit and Gains of Business & Profession', deductions of large amounts under different sections are being allowed by the Assessing Officers without proper verification, leading to substantial loss of revenue

DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S TOPLAND FINCORP,, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Cir.1(2) M/S.Topland Fincorp Rajkot. 2, Umakant Pandit Vs. Udhyognagar Mavdi Plot Rajkot. (Applicant) (Responent) Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar Das, Dr Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/09/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: Revenue Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-I, Rajkot Dated 24.4.2017 Passed For The Asstt.Year 2013-14. 2. In The First Ground Of Appeal, The Grievance Of Revenue Is That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.3,26,821/- Which Was Disallowed By The Ao With The Help Of Section 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically On 16.9.2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.(-)6,01,95,642/-. The 2 Ld.Ao Observed That The Assessee Has Shown Dividend Income Amounting To Rs.69,940/-. He Worked Out The Disallowance Required To Be Made Under Section 14A With Formula Given Under Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules At Rs.3,26,821/-. On The Appeal, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Deleted The Disallowance On The Ground That The Alleged Dividend Income Was Not Claimed As Exempt By The Assessee. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Relied Upon The Decision Of Hon’Ble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case Of Corrtech Energy P.Ltd., 45 Taxmann.Com 116. Hon’Ble High Court Has Held That If There Is No Exempt Income Claimed By The Assessee, Then No Disallowance Under Section 14A Required To Be Made.

26,821/- which was disallowed by the AO with the help of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Brief

M/S MGM TRADELINK PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 974/Rjt/2010 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-2006

section 14A(3) of the Act. The 'Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 3. The ''Ld.AO has erred in law as well as on facts in making disallowance of Rs.12,67,684/- on account of inflation in purchase price. The ''Ld.CIT(A) has erred in disallowed entire purchasing of Rs1,26