BACKBONE ENTERPRISE LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

37 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise Ltd. 9.1 Accordingly, we are of the view, that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction under section 80-IA (4) of the Act in respect of contract number 7 as mentioned above. Contract number 8: JMC Road: 9.2 In this case, Ld. CIT(Appeals) while allowing the relief

THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

37 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise Ltd. 9.1 Accordingly, we are of the view, that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction under section 80-IA (4) of the Act in respect of contract number 7 as mentioned above. Contract number 8: JMC Road: 9.2 In this case, Ld. CIT(Appeals) while allowing the relief

BACKBONE ENTERPRISE LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company.” 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) discussed facts of each of the individual projects carried out by the assessee on merits, and based on the analysis of each of the projects, gave part relief to the assessee. The Department and the assessee are in appeal

THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company.” 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) discussed facts of each of the individual projects carried out by the assessee on merits, and based on the analysis of each of the projects, gave part relief to the assessee. The Department and the assessee are in appeal

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

37,0738 The benefit of DTAA between India and Singapore is governed by mainly Article 8 & 24, with Article 24 being the limitation of relief clause. In the above 16 voyages, the remittance has not been subjected to tax in Singapore and therefore Article 24 of the DTAA comes directly into play, Article 24 of the DTAA agreement between India

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

37,0738 The benefit of DTAA between India and Singapore is governed by mainly Article 8 & 24, with Article 24 being the limitation of relief clause. In the above 16 voyages, the remittance has not been subjected to tax in Singapore and therefore Article 24 of the DTAA comes directly into play, Article 24 of the DTAA agreement between India

BACKBONE ENTERPRISE LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

37 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise Ltd. 8.21 Accordingly, we are of the view, that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in holding that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction under section 80-IA (4) of the Act in respect of project Number 9. Contract number 10: GIDC

THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

37 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise Ltd. 8.21 Accordingly, we are of the view, that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in holding that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction under section 80-IA (4) of the Act in respect of project Number 9. Contract number 10: GIDC

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

disallowance on account of investigation expenses paid by the bank. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the addition of Rs.67,10,325/- being the difference in the amount with reference to the TDS certificate and that claimed as job work income. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

disallowance on account of investigation expenses paid by the bank. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the addition of Rs.67,10,325/- being the difference in the amount with reference to the TDS certificate and that claimed as job work income. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

section 37(1) of the Act. 20. With regard to his contention on the nature of services received by virtue of these expenses being established to the AO, he drew our attention to the facts noted by the DRP inits order as reproduced above vis-à-vis these expenses, and pointed out that the payment for management

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

section 37(1) of the Act. 20. With regard to his contention on the nature of services received by virtue of these expenses being established to the AO, he drew our attention to the facts noted by the DRP inits order as reproduced above vis-à-vis these expenses, and pointed out that the payment for management

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

section 37(1) of the Act. 20. With regard to his contention on the nature of services received by virtue of these expenses being established to the AO, he drew our attention to the facts noted by the DRP inits order as reproduced above vis-à-vis these expenses, and pointed out that the payment for management

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

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) 46 Improvement of Tata, Bhimbad Road (MDR) Km 0/0 to 6/0 Taluka Gadhada (Under Kishan Path) 47 Improvement of Road Under Kishanpath Yojna of Dist. Bhavnagar Pkg. BVN/KP/06-07/03, Ta. Botad / Gadhada

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

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) 46 Improvement of Tata, Bhimbad Road (MDR) Km 0/0 to 6/0 Taluka Gadhada (Under Kishan Path) 47 Improvement of Road Under Kishanpath Yojna of Dist. Bhavnagar Pkg. BVN/KP/06-07/03, Ta. Botad / Gadhada

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

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) 46 Improvement of Tata, Bhimbad Road (MDR) Km 0/0 to 6/0 Taluka Gadhada (Under Kishan Path) 47 Improvement of Road Under Kishanpath Yojna of Dist. Bhavnagar Pkg. BVN/KP/06-07/03, Ta. Botad / Gadhada

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

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) 46 Improvement of Tata, Bhimbad Road (MDR) Km 0/0 to 6/0 Taluka Gadhada (Under Kishan Path) 47 Improvement of Road Under Kishanpath Yojna of Dist. Bhavnagar Pkg. BVN/KP/06-07/03, Ta. Botad / Gadhada

THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (4),, RAJKOT vs. PATEL HIGHWAY MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 383/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-2014 Patel Highway Management Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O., 2Nd Floor, Patcon House, Vs. Ward-2(1)4, Kalwad Road, Rajkot. Kotecha Chowk, Rajkot.

disallowance u/s.80IA(4) of the Act by observing as follows: The finding of the AO, while denying the claim of deduction, was focused - • That the letter of award has been allotted to the consortium of M/s. Patel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Katira Construction Ltd on the basis of the evaluation of the financial and technical capacity of both