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

Section 40(A)(ia) of the Act. 22. The identical issue has already been dealt with by us in ITA No. 27/Rjt/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13 and in the absence of any changed ITA Nos.27/RJT/2016& 360,315/Rjt/2015 A.Y.2011-12,2012-13 circumstances the same shall apply mutatis mutandis. Hence, this ground of appeal preferred by the Revenue is also dismissed

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

disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- out of administrative expenses. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground anytime up to the hearing of this appeal.” 3. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:- AY 2005-06 “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction U/s 80IA

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

disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- out of administrative expenses. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground anytime up to the hearing of this appeal.” 3. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:- AY 2005-06 “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction U/s 80IA

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

disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- out of administrative expenses. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground anytime up to the hearing of this appeal.” 3. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:- AY 2005-06 “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction U/s 80IA

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

disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- out of administrative expenses. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground anytime up to the hearing of this appeal.” 3. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:- AY 2005-06 “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction U/s 80IA

SMT. NIRMALABEN V. PATEL,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1 , JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

disallowance could be made under section 14A where assessee's interest-free funds far exceeded its interest-free investments. In the case of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd [2014] 42 taxmann.com 270

M/S P.M. DIESELS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 14A was not justified. Again, in the case of UTI Bank Ltd[2018] 99 taxmann.com 392 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that no disallowance could be made where assessee's interest-free funds far exceeded its interest-free investments. In the case of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd [2014] 42 taxmann.com 270

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

disallowance\nthereof is not a loss of revenue, read with provision of section\n270(10)(b) read with section 270

SHRI MANOJ B. MANSUKHANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, , RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

270 (Gujarat High Court) which is to the effect that where it is apparent from records assessee had sufficient funds for making investments in shares and interest rate bonds and had not used borrowed funds for such purpose, AO was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 14A in order to disallow

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

270/- by way of reversing the provision of the earlier year which is more than the provision made for the year under consideration. 5. However, the assessing officer was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee has not claimed any expense against the provisions made by it in the earlier assessment years. Thus

THE DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

270/- by way of reversing the provision of the earlier year which is more than the provision made for the year under consideration. 5. However, the assessing officer was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee has not claimed any expense against the provisions made by it in the earlier assessment years. Thus

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

270/- by way of reversing the provision of the earlier year which is more than the provision made for the year under consideration. 5. However, the assessing officer was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee has not claimed any expense against the provisions made by it in the earlier assessment years. Thus

M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

270/- by way of reversing the provision of the earlier year which is more than the provision made for the year under consideration. 5. However, the assessing officer was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee has not claimed any expense against the provisions made by it in the earlier assessment years. Thus

M/S. BABJI OIL MILL PVT. LTD.,,RANEKPAR, TAL. WAKANER, DIST. MORBI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MORBI CIRCLE, , MORBI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member M/s. Babji Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd., 8- (Accountant Member)

270,000/- under section 68 of the act, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition on the ground that in the appellate proceedings, the assessee has furnished no evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. With respect to the disallowance

SMT. KRUSHNABA PRAVINSINH JADEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

section 68 of the Act.\"\nHowever, the Assessing Officer, rejected the above contention of\nthe assessee and observed that assessee has failed to prove identity,\nPage | 14\nITA Nos.572&577/RJT/2015/AY.2012-13\nKrushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja\ngenuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, therefore, made\naddition of Rs. 83,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act.\n24.\nOn appeal, by the assessee

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. KRUSHNABA P. JADEJA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

section 68 of the Act."” 23. However, the Assessing Officer, rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that assessee has failed to prove identity, ITA Nos.572&577/RJT/2015/AY.2012-13 Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, therefore, made addition of Rs. 83,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. 24. On appeal, by the assessee

SMT. KUSUMBEN AMRITLAL SANGHAVI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE DCIT ,CIRCLE, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 194/Rjt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Smt. Kusumben Amritlal Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Sanghavi Income Tax Vs. C/O. Kantilal & Circle-2, Jamnagar - Brothers, Grain Market, 361008 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afhps5412C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri D. S. Varia, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 06/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 30/05/2023 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 25.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamnagar (‘The Cit(A)’), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 30.06.2017 Passed By The Learned Dcit, Circle-2, Jamnagar Under Section

Section 54F of the Act to the tune of Rs.10,53,975/- has been disallowed. 2. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. 3. The brief facts leading to this case is this that the assessee, an individual, filed the return of income

SHREE DHAMEL SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LIMITED,DHAMEL vs. THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CPC),, BANGALURU

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 312 /Rjt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Dhamel Seva Sahkari Vs. The Asstt. Director Of Mandali Ltd. Income Tax (Cpc) Amreli, Post Bag No. 2, Electronic Gujarat – 365220 City Post Office, Bangalore - 560500 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkas8446E (Assessee) (Respondent)

disallowed the assessee's claim of deduction by invoking the provisions of section 80AC of the Act. The due date for furnishing return of income as per section 139(1) was subject to extended period provided under sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Act. The action of the CPC and such an adjustment made