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

section 43(5) but was incidental to the assessee’s business and allowable as such. Thus, the hedging of currency is incidental to the appellant’s business and the same is therefore held as allowable business expenditure. The disallowance

DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S TOPLAND FINCORP,, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Cir.1(2) M/S.Topland Fincorp Rajkot. 2, Umakant Pandit Vs. Udhyognagar Mavdi Plot Rajkot. (Applicant) (Responent) Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar Das, Dr Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/09/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: Revenue Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-I, Rajkot Dated 24.4.2017 Passed For The Asstt.Year 2013-14. 2. In The First Ground Of Appeal, The Grievance Of Revenue Is That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.3,26,821/- Which Was Disallowed By The Ao With The Help Of Section 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically On 16.9.2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.(-)6,01,95,642/-. The 2 Ld.Ao Observed That The Assessee Has Shown Dividend Income Amounting To Rs.69,940/-. He Worked Out The Disallowance Required To Be Made Under Section 14A With Formula Given Under Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules At Rs.3,26,821/-. On The Appeal, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Deleted The Disallowance On The Ground That The Alleged Dividend Income Was Not Claimed As Exempt By The Assessee. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Relied Upon The Decision Of Hon’Ble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case Of Corrtech Energy P.Ltd., 45 Taxmann.Com 116. Hon’Ble High Court Has Held That If There Is No Exempt Income Claimed By The Assessee, Then No Disallowance Under Section 14A Required To Be Made.

disallowance under section 14A is required to be made. Hence this ground of appeal is rejected. 5. Ground no.2: In this ground of appeal, grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the finding of the AO whereby the ld.CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee of Rs.4

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES P. LTD.,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 80IA(4) for both the CFS. The return of income was filed on 29.11.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 6,73,02,740/-. The Assessing Officer assessed the total income at Rs. 72,61,35,710/- thereby disallowing the deduction of Rs. 64,43

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has made short deduction of Rs.17,590/- and was liable for short deduction at Rs.4,050/- besides late payment interest of Rs.1,19,120/- and Rs.26,084/-. Thus, the Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order. 34. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has already disallowed

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has made short deduction of Rs.17,590/- and was liable for short deduction at Rs.4,050/- besides late payment interest of Rs.1,19,120/- and Rs.26,084/-. Thus, the Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order. 34. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has already disallowed

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

disallowance. The contentions of the assessee have been deliberated at length and are not found to be acceptable. As per provision of section 43

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.376/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Circle-3(1), Vs. Gopalnaga, Opp. Andh Mahila Rajkot. Vikas Gruh, Rajkot.

disallowed the sum of Rs.68,31,402/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 11. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A), who has deleted the addition made by the AO after having reliance on the order of his predecessor for the Assessment Year 2008-09 in the own case of the assessee. 12. Being

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S DML EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 43(5) but was incidental to the assessee’s business and allowable as such. Thus, the hedging of currency is incidental to the appellant’s business and the same is therefore held as allowable business expenditure. The disallowance

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (2), RAJKOT vs. SHRI NARENDRA NANJIBHAI DAVDA, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 43(5) but was incidental to the assessee’s business and allowable as such. Thus, the hedging of currency is incidental to the appellant’s business and the same is therefore held as allowable business expenditure. The disallowance

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. D.M.L. WORLD TRADE PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 43(5) but was incidental to the assessee’s business and allowable as such. Thus, the hedging of currency is incidental to the appellant’s business and the same is therefore held as allowable business expenditure. The disallowance

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. DRB COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 43(5) but was incidental to the assessee’s business and allowable as such. Thus, the hedging of currency is incidental to the appellant’s business and the same is therefore held as allowable business expenditure. The disallowance

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. DRB COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 43(5) but was incidental to the assessee’s business and allowable as such. Thus, the hedging of currency is incidental to the appellant’s business and the same is therefore held as allowable business expenditure. The disallowance

THE DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT MEENABEN H LAKHANI, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 43(5) but was incidental to the assessee’s business and allowable as such. Thus, the hedging of currency is incidental to the appellant’s business and the same is therefore held as allowable business expenditure. The disallowance

THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S SRV METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

disallowance was made because the assessee had not produced enough details to establish the genuineness of the unsecured loans. 6. The Id. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the factual and legal matrix of the addition made of Rs 1,12,500/- on account of director's remuneration. The Id. CIT(A) ought

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

43 the only sections which can be made appli cable are either section 36 or 37. I have already stated above that the assessee-company's learned counsel is not relying on section 36 but is relying on section 37 and to me it appears that sections 28 and 29 read together do not show that if a case comes

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

43 the only sections which can be made appli cable are either section 36 or 37. I have already stated above that the assessee-company's learned counsel is not relying on section 36 but is relying on section 37 and to me it appears that sections 28 and 29 read together do not show that if a case comes

HIMESH R. SHAH,JAMNAGAR. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, JAMNAGAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Himesh R. Shah Vs. Acit, Cir.3 Parikh & Co. Jamnagar. Ranjit Road Jamnagar 361 001. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.S. Varia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit(Dr)

43) pointing out therefrom that identical disallowance under section 14A amounting to Rs.37,53,707/- had been made on account

SHRI JUGALKISHORE NATWARLAL DHOLAKIA,JUNAGADH vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 14/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Jugalkishore Natwarlal Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abqpd 2710 D आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 15/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Girishkumar Vachhraj Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abupd 6245 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Jani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy:-

disallowance under Section 14A as item No. (v) of sub-heading (2) “Large Interest Expenses relatable to exempt income under Section 14A” was asked for. The same is appearing at page Nos. 43