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

32. He further drew our attention to the order of the DRP pointing out that the DRP had not even dealt with submissions made by the assessee before it. 33. On the issue of disallowance of bank guarantee commission expenses made 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

32. He further drew our attention to the order of the DRP pointing out that the DRP had not even dealt with submissions made by the assessee before it. 33. On the issue of disallowance of bank guarantee commission expenses made under section

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GANDHI REALITY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

Section 32(1) indicates that goodwill would fall under the expression 'any other business or commercial rights of similar nature’. The principle of ejusdem generis would strictly apply while interpreting the said expression which finds place in Explanation 3(b). 12. The Assessee also submitted before the assessing officer that the Amendments made by Finance Act, 2021 in relation

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

32. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has made disallowance of Rs.1.20 Lakhs in computation of income and there is no dispute by the Revenue Authorities that total exempt income as shown by the assessee is Rs.5,000/-. Thus, A.Ys

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

32. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has made disallowance of Rs.1.20 Lakhs in computation of income and there is no dispute by the Revenue Authorities that total exempt income as shown by the assessee is Rs.5,000/-. Thus, A.Ys

THA ACIT, CIRCLE MORBI, MORBI vs. M/S. JAXX VITRIFIED PVT. LTD. , MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed by A.O. on the ground that carried ACIT vs. M/s. Jaxx Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2013-14 forward of such additional depreciation is inadmissible as per provisions of section 32

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:

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The appellant prays that the addition made by the Learned AO in relation to the disallowance of reimbursement of bank guarantee commission be deleted. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think

DR. SUBHASH PETHALJI CHAVDA AHIR KELVANI MANDAL,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-2,, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing the depreciation which was claimed under Section 32 of the Act was that once the capital expenditure is treated

THE ASST. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S RAVI TECHNOFORGE PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Acit, Cir.1 Vs. M/S.Ravi Techno Forge P. Ltd. Rajkot. Plot No.7/8, Survey No.211 Veraval Shapar Ind. Area Rajkot Gondal Highway, Tal. Kotdasangani Dist. Rajkot. Pan : Aadcs 1608 N 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/06/2023

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short] for the Asst.Year2014-15. 2. The grounds raised in the appeal are as under: “1. The learned CIT(A)-2, Rajkot has erred in law and on facts in deleting the additions made on account of disallowance of additional depreciation u/s 32

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S. SHIVABYAY PROJECT PVT. LTD. , GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “The grounds of appeal mentioned herein under are without prejudice to each other. 1.0 Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-l, Rajkot has erred in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs, 13,32

M/S. SHIVABYAY PROJECT PVT. LTD. ,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “The grounds of appeal mentioned herein under are without prejudice to each other. 1.0 Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-l, Rajkot has erred in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs, 13,32

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

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 Road Km 0/0 to 6/5 Ta. Botad (under 12th FC Programme

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

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 Road Km 0/0 to 6/5 Ta. Botad (under 12th FC Programme

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

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 Road Km 0/0 to 6/5 Ta. Botad (under 12th FC Programme

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

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 Road Km 0/0 to 6/5 Ta. Botad (under 12th FC Programme

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

ALIADAR 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

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