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

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disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company.” 5.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disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company.” 5.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

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

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 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

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 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

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

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:

37(1) of the Act by holding it to be a prior expense. 3.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in and learned DRP has further erred in confirming disallowance of amount paid towards reimbursement of bank guarantee commission under section

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for Assessment

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) in respect of following infrastructure projects undertaken by the appellant: Sr. No. of project referred by CIT (Appeals) Name of the project 5 Nabard Package Gondal 6 Dwarka Okha Km. 234 to 239 7 Pravasipath Dwarka Okha 242 to 247 8 Sardargadh Zinzarda Road ITA Nos. 218/Rjt/2015 & 204/Rjt/2015 (Classic Networks

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

4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR in respect of ground no.1 submitted that the CIT(A) was not right in deleting the disallowance of damages and settlement expenses of Rs.6,12,64,000/- as the settlement documents

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

4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR in respect of ground no.1 submitted that the CIT(A) was not right in deleting the disallowance of damages and settlement expenses of Rs.6,12,64,000/- as the settlement documents