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)

31-10-2022, in proceedings under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A No. 314/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 2 Batava Devli Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. ADIT (CPC) Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal 1. The learned

ITO WARD 3(1)(4), RAJKOT-STATION- AMRELI, AMRELI, GUJARAT vs. AVADH AGRI EXPORTS, AMRELI, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

31 The scheme of taxability in India, so far as the non- residents, are concerned, is like this. Section 5 (2), which deals with the taxability of income in the hands of a nonresident, provides that "the total income of any previous year of a person who is a nonresident includes all income from whatever source derived which

ACIT, CIR-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD, RAJKOT

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.188/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Tax, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot Limited Room No.502, Aayakar Bhawan, Jilla Bankbhavan, Kasturba Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot- Opp: Chaudhary High School, 360001 Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaar0564K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr : 09/06 /2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08 /2025

disallowance of Rs. 1,87,65,201/- on account of excess claim of deduction u/s 36(1) (viii) of the Act by way of letter/submission during the assessment proceeding. 2. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law on facts in directing to allowed deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- as against

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-3(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. SONPAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD., RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Dcit, Circle – 3(1), Vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rajkot Aayakar Bhavan, Room Dhari Bagsara Road, Nr. Ice No. 114, 1St Floor, Race Course Factory, Amreli Ring Road, Rajkot Pan No.: Aajcs0177N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am; By Way Of This Appeal, The Revenue, Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 16.11.2017, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Grievances Raised By The Revenue, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,96,33,023/- Holding That Provision Of Section 195 Will Not Be Applicable. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred In Ignoring The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of Foreign Commission Expenses Before The A.O. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of The C.I.T. (A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The A.O. Be Restored To The Above Extent. Dcit Vs. M/S. Sonpal Export Pvt. Ltd.

31 The scheme of taxability in India, so far as the non- residents, are concerned, is like this. Section 5 (2), which deals with the taxability of income in the hands of a non- resident, provides that "the total income of any previous year of a person who is a non- resident includes all income from whatever source derived which

CHAKARGADH SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,CHAKARGADH SEVA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT(CPC),, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

31-08-2019. Thereafter, the assessee received intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act making adjustment in the returned income and not granting deduction of " 5,58,494/- claimed in the return of income under section 80P of the Act, since the return of income was not filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1

THE DHARANGADHRA PEOPLE'S CO. OP. BANK LTD.,,DHRANGADHRA vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.130-131/Rjt/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ The Dharangadhra People’S D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Kalpvarksh, Mandvi Chowk, Surendranagar. Dhrangadhara, Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat1192R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 20/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 01/02/2017, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 16/02/2015 & 27/11/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.S) 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

disallowing the claim of loss for Rs. 1,56,71,108.00 only. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a co- operative society and engaged in the co-operative banking business. The ITA Nos.130-131/RJT/2017 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 assessee for the year under consideration had filed its return of income dated 31

SHRI TRAMBAKPUR SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,AT TRAMBAKPUR TALUKA DHARI DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT/ACIT (CPC),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

31-10-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2019-20, arises from order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037551925(1) dated 07-12-2021, in I.T.A No. 23/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 2 Shri Trambakpur Sahkari Mandali Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT(CPC) proceedings under section

SHRI NAVA UJALA SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,AT NAVA UJALA, TALUKA KUNKAVAV, GUIJARAT-365450 vs. THE DCIT/ACIT(CPC),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of deduction for deed filing of return of income and also the said adjustment is not permissible under section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act. 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee

DHAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,DHAR, TALUKA: - SAVARKUNDLA, DIST. AMRELI-GUJARAT. vs. THE DCIT(CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

31-08-2019. As per section 80AC deduction under any provision of the Chapter under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes" shall not be allowed to an assessee unless the assessee furnishes a return of income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. 5.5 In Right

MEDI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,MEDI, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

31-10-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2019-20, arises from order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037911824(1) dated 17-12-2021, in proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 38/Rjt/2022

AMRELI JILLA MADHYASTH SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,AMRELI vs. THE DCIT-ACIT-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.548/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Sahakari The Dcit/Acit-2(1) बनाम Bank Ltd. Rajkot. Bhojalram Bhavan Vs. Rajmahel Road Amreli 365 601. Pan : Aaata 2737 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M.Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs.57,00,750/- made by the Appellant u/s 36(l)(viia) of the Act in the return of income filed for the year. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal. 3. In the light of the above grounds

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

disallowance proposed by the AO, applying section 37(1) of the Act and also section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for the purpose of holding that the assessee was liable to withhold the tax in terms of Treaty with Finland. The DRP took a different view as opposed to that taken by the AO holding that the impugned amount

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

disallowance proposed by the AO, applying section 37(1) of the Act and also section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for the purpose of holding that the assessee was liable to withhold the tax in terms of Treaty with Finland. The DRP took a different view as opposed to that taken by the AO holding that the impugned amount

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

disallowance proposed by the AO, applying section 37(1) of the Act and also section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for the purpose of holding that the assessee was liable to withhold the tax in terms of Treaty with Finland. The DRP took a different view as opposed to that taken by the AO holding that the impugned amount

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2011-12 Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Vs. Pr.Cit, Rajkot-1 Bank Ltd. Rajkot. ‘Jilla Bank Bhavan’, Kasturba Road Opp: Chaudhari High School Rajkot. Pan : Aaaar 0564 K 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2023

1. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1 ("the Principal CIT") has erred in fact and in law in cancelling the Order passed u/s 143(3) dated 04.03.2014 and directing the Assessing Officer to "pass a fresh assessment order", by invoking powers u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") despite the fact that the mandatory

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

1) of the Act. Thus, we are of the view that the assessee has complied with the provision of section 43B of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT (A). 20.1 In view of the above, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. ITA Nos.947/Rjt/2010 & 306/Rjt/2013 A.Ys

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

1) of the Act. Thus, we are of the view that the assessee has complied with the provision of section 43B of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT (A). 20.1 In view of the above, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. ITA Nos.947/Rjt/2010 & 306/Rjt/2013 A.Ys

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

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

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