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

disallowance can be made under section 14A.” ITA Nos.27/RJT/2016& 360,315/Rjt/2015 A.Y.2011-12,2012-13 The order passed by the Mumbai Bench in Raj Shipping Agencies Ltd. vs. Additional CIT, reported in 2013, 30

GODHAVADAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,GODHAVADAR, LILIYA MOTA, AMRELI-365535 vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

30-11-2020 declaring total income of " " Nil and claimed deduction of 6,53,498/-under section 80P of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee received intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act making adjustment in the returned income and not granting deduction of " 6,53,498/- claimed in the return of income 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

30. The AO in his draft order proposed a disallowance of this expense for two alternate reasons viz. that since it related to prior period, it is disallowable 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

30. The AO in his draft order proposed a disallowance of this expense for two alternate reasons viz. that since it related to prior period, it is disallowable 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

30. The AO in his draft order proposed a disallowance of this expense for two alternate reasons viz. that since it related to prior period, it is disallowable under section

SHRI SHASHIKANT BHAGVANJIBHAI RAJPARA,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2017-18 Shashikant Bhavajjibhai Rajpara Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 409, Aadarsh Plaza, Rajkot. 150 Ft. Ring Road Rajkot. Pan : Abipr 9935 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Rajkot [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Pr.Cit Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 7.2.2022 Pertaining To The Asst.Year2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Are As Under: “1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax - Rajkot -1, Rajkot Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act, Particularly In The Light Of Reasons Stated By Him In The Show Cause Notice & In The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act & Hence The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Rajkot - 1, Rajkot Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3)Of The Act By Holding That The Ao Has Not Properly Examined The Facts Of The Case In 2

30,229/- made by the AO came within the purview of section 69C of the Act. We have gone through the provision of section 69C of the Act and also disallowance

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

30. As regards to ground no.9, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance under Section

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

30. As regards to ground no.9, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance under Section

PUNABHAI G. PARDAVA,,DHARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4),, AMRELI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

30,000 only. Accordingly, the AO concluded that the payment of the rent was paid to one person only. Thus the assessee was liable to deduct the TDS under the provisions of section 194-I read with section 40(a)(ia) of the Act but he failed to do so. Therefore the AO, disallowed

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES P. LTD.,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) to the extent of Rs. 2,30,935/-. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 of Revenue’s appeal are partly allowed. 12. As regards Ground No. 5 the issue related to education cess & SHEC under Section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

30 section 194J of the Act. Thus in our considered view the assessee is not eligible for deduction for the expenses due to non-deduction of TDS under section 194J read with section 40a(ia) of the Act. 27.2 However, as per the 2nd proviso to the section 40a(ia) of the Act, the expenses on account of non-deduction

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

30 section 194J of the Act. Thus in our considered view the assessee is not eligible for deduction for the expenses due to non-deduction of TDS under section 194J read with section 40a(ia) of the Act. 27.2 However, as per the 2nd proviso to the section 40a(ia) of the Act, the expenses on account of non-deduction

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:

disallowable in terms of section 40(a)(i) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source. As is evident from the order of the DRP reproduced above, the assessee was held liable to withhold the tax on the impugned payment in terms of Article 21 of the DTAA entered into with Finland. The Article 21 is reproduced hereunder

M/S. L. L. ELECTRICALS,RAJKOT vs. THE NEAC, DELHI , DELHI

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is being set aside to the file of Assessing Officer with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 200 r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, on perusal of the income tax returns of the respective parties, the AO noticed that neither of these parties have claimed TDS on interest paid to them. Hence, a sum of Rs. 1,67,936/- (being 30% of Rs. 5,59,788/-) was disallowed

BATAVA DEVLI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,BATAVA DEVLI, TAL. KUNLAVA, DIST. AMRELI. vs. THE ADIT, (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

disallowance of deduction claimed under section I.T.A No. 314/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 11 Batava Devli Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. ADIT (CPC) 80P during relevant years 2018-19 and 2019-20 on grounds of late filing of return was unjustified. Again, in the case of Lunidhar Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. v. Assessing Officer (CPC)49 taxmann.com 28 (Rajkot

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

30 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 31 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 32 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 33 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 34 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 35 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 36 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 37 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 39 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 45 Improvement of Zamrala Ratanav Panavi

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

30 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 31 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 32 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 33 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 34 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 35 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 36 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 37 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 39 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 45 Improvement of Zamrala Ratanav Panavi

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

30 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 31 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 32 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 33 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 34 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 35 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 36 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 37 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 39 Agreement for Road Repairing only. 45 Improvement of Zamrala Ratanav Panavi