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disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company.” 5.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

disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company.” 5.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

disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company.” 5.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disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company.” 5.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

section 80-IA (4) of the Act in respect of the above projects. I.T.A Nos. 128 & 149/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 40 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise Ltd. Contract No. 1: Bhachau Ramvav Rapar Adesar 9.1 In this case, Ld. CIT(Appeals) while disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA(4

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

section 80-IA (4) of the Act in respect of the above projects. I.T.A Nos. 128 & 149/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 40 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise Ltd. Contract No. 1: Bhachau Ramvav Rapar Adesar 9.1 In this case, Ld. CIT(Appeals) while disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA(4

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. ADITYA GOPAL EXPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 17/Rjt/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit Aditya Gopal Export Pvt. Income Tax, Circle-2, Vs Ltd., Near Railway Jamnagar Siding, Near Old Railway Station, Jamnagar Pan No. Aac Ca3 014 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Ranjit Singh, Cit Dr Assessee By : Shri M. J. Ranpura, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020

disallowed in the year in which it was claimed, or could have been treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee under section 68 of the Act in the relevant assessment year, but the same cannot be taxed under section 41(1) of the Act, inasmuch as if the liability itself is not genuine, the question

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

4-1 of the order as under: 3. (i) As per Note-15 to the accounts, the company has determined its business segment as non woven fabrics. Since 100% of the company business is from non woven fabrics there are no other primary reportable segments. (ii) However for the purpose of benchmarking International transactions the taxpayer has submitted following segmentals

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

4-1 of the order as under: 3. (i) As per Note-15 to the accounts, the company has determined its business segment as non woven fabrics. Since 100% of the company business is from non woven fabrics there are no other primary reportable segments. (ii) However for the purpose of benchmarking International transactions the taxpayer has submitted following segmentals

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

4-1 of the order as under: 3. (i) As per Note-15 to the accounts, the company has determined its business segment as non woven fabrics. Since 100% of the company business is from non woven fabrics there are no other primary reportable segments. (ii) However for the purpose of benchmarking International transactions the taxpayer has submitted following segmentals

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, JUNAGADH vs. M/S KESHODWALA FOODS., VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1133/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08) D.C.I.T, बनाम/ M/S Keshodwala Foods, Circle-1, 305-G.I.D.C. Industrial Vs. Junagadh. Estate, Somnath Road, Veraval. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfk6651Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ranjit Singh Cit. D.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 16/06/2010, 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 08/12/2009 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2007- 08. A.Y. 2007-08 The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowed uls 40(ia). 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Rajkot has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,69,502/- on account of unpaid liabilities uls 41(1). 4. The Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Rajkot has erred in law and on facts in partly deleting the addition on account of car & motor bike

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

disallowed as deduction. Such orders cannot be held to be erroneous 3. The learned Principal CIT is not permitted in law to pre-judge taxability of Rs. 25.00 Crore transferred from Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debt to Statutory Reserve and propose the same to be taxed which effectively serves as directions to AO to make specified addition

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

41. Ground no.2 is not pressed by the assessee and hence ground no.2 of assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 42. As regards to ground no.3 of Assessee’s appeal related to confirming disallowance of Rs.52,34,500/- for contribution made towards PWD Road, the Ld. AR submitted that the contribution towards construction of 4 lane road in order to facilitate

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

41. Ground no.2 is not pressed by the assessee and hence ground no.2 of assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 42. As regards to ground no.3 of Assessee’s appeal related to confirming disallowance of Rs.52,34,500/- for contribution made towards PWD Road, the Ld. AR submitted that the contribution towards construction of 4 lane road in order to facilitate

THE ITO, WARD 1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S PAVAN CONSTRUCTION CO, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

41(1) Rs.8,12,550/- (viii) Disallowance out of various expenses Rs.2,98,272/- 2. On the facts of the case, Ld.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is therefore prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. The first

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

disallowance in computing the ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 22 total income of the assessee for the purpose of section 271(1)(c) would be deemed to be representing the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. 36. In the light of the above, let us examine the facts of present case. Perusal

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

disallowance in computing the ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 22 total income of the assessee for the purpose of section 271(1)(c) would be deemed to be representing the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. 36. In the light of the above, let us examine the facts of present case. Perusal

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

disallowance in computing the ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 22 total income of the assessee for the purpose of section 271(1)(c) would be deemed to be representing the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. 36. In the light of the above, let us examine the facts of present case. Perusal