M/S. SHAILDEEP ENGINEERING P. LTD., RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2019-20 Shaildeep Engineering P.Ltd. Vs. Adit, Cpc C-1/38, Gidc, Aji Industrial Delhi. Estate, Phase-1, Rajkot Sanosara B.O.,Jaliya Rajkot 360 003. Pan : Aaecs 9245 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Akash Goda, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 27.12.201 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2019-20. 2. As Transpires From Orders Of The Authority Below, The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Vis-À-Vis Adjustment Made To The Income Of The Assessee In The Intimation Made Under Section 143(1) Of The Act By Way Of Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80Jja Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,02,500/- & Disallowance Of Employees’ 2 Contribution To Esi & Pf In Terms Of Section 36(1)(Va) Amounting To Rs.2,81,444/-. The Reasons For Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 80Jja Being Non-Filing Of Necessary Audit Report In Form No.10Da Along With Return Of Income & That For Disallowance Of Employees’ Contribution To Esi & Pf Being Late Deposit Of The Same With The Requisite Funds.

D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order passed by the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) dated 27.12.201 pertaining to the Asst.Year 2019-20. 2. As transpires from orders

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

d) The order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. 11. As per the Explanation 2, the order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous

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

1,04,17,891/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 34.1 Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), reiterated the submission made before the Assessing Officer. 35. The assessee in addition to the submission made before the Assessing Officer further contended that the impugned land was sold

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

1,04,17,891/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 34.1 Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), reiterated the submission made before the Assessing Officer. 35. The assessee in addition to the submission made before the Assessing Officer further contended that the impugned land was sold

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

1,04,17,891/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 34.1 Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), reiterated the submission made before the Assessing Officer. 35. The assessee in addition to the submission made before the Assessing Officer further contended that the impugned land was sold

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

1,04,17,891/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 34.1 Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), reiterated the submission made before the Assessing Officer. 35. The assessee in addition to the submission made before the Assessing Officer further contended that the impugned land was sold

KLIN INDUSTRIES,SANDHA KHAMIDANA, JUNAGADH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2014-15, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi /Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) [in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 31.10.2025, which

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.498/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S Real Procon Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Saneshwar Complex, Rajkot. Opp. Balalji Hall, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot.

D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Rajkot, dated 17/07/201 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S P.C. PATEL & CO.,, BHUJ

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2014- 15. I.T.A No. 194/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2 ACIT Vs. M/s. P C Patel & Co. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Partnership Firm engaged in the business of Earth