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

SHREE MEENAWALA CASTING,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKTO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed on the basis of assessed income i.e. on the basis of additions made during the course of assessment, then this would lead to multiplicity of proceedings, which would have a bearing on the proceedings for various years under consideration, in which the benefit of carry-forward of losses and set off thereof has been availed. Therefore, in order

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

SHRI DIPTEN AHINDRA BHOWMICK,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

section 264 of the Act made on 29-3-2004, cannot be sustained. A.Y. 2016-17 3 20. A word of caution. The authorities under the Act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ADDI. CIT, RANGE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

ASSISTANT COMMISSINER OF IINCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

disallow the claim of deduction under section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market

LATE SHANTABEN CHANDRASHANKAR VYAS CHARITABLE TRUST,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CPC),, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.25/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2018-2019 वष"

disallowance made in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act by observing as under: A.Y. 2018-19 3 4.2 The submission of the appellant is considered. In this regard, it is to be noted that proceedings under section 143(1) is not an assessment. The proceedings under section 143(1) is like preliminary checking of the return

SAURASHTRA CEMENT LIMITED,PORBANDAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.307/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Saurashtra Cement Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Near Railway Station, बनाम Income Tax, Jamnagar, Saurashtra Cement Factory, Jamnagar Vs. P.O. Ranavav, Adityana Road, Porbandar, Gujarat-360560 Pan : Aahfs5211J (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld.Ar राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanja Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2026 Order

264 Taxman 76 (SC) [03-05-2019], where High Court upheld Tribunal's order holding that in absence of any exempt income reported by assessee, disallowance could not be made under section

SHRI TUSHARBHAI MANSHUKHBHAI DESAI,,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO-WARD 1(1)(5),, RAJKOT

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

264 (Punjab & Haryana), held that once under special provision of section 44AD of the Act, exemption from maintenance of books of account has been provided and presumptive tax at rate of 8 per cent of gross receipt itself is basis for determining taxable income, assessee is not under any obligation to explain individual entry of cash deposit in bank unless

SHRI SWASTIK COLOR LAB,,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-3(1), , JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 Shri Swastik Color Lab, I.T.O., Nr. Scooter House, Vs. Ward-3(1), Jamnagar. Jamnagar.

264/-) Against this the assessee had claimed remuneration of Rs.5,98,897/-. Hence the excess amount of rs.2,07,132/- is required to be taxed. 12.1 From the above reasons recorded by the AO, it is revealed that the proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated on the verification of the A.Y. 2011-12 5 case records which

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

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

PARAS RAMESHCHANDRA DOSHI,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT - 1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

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

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

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

BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT

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