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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

6. The second issue relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer of a sum of Rs. 5.05 lacs under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the assessee had not deducted tax at source on foreign commission payments. The Tribunal however, recorded that the non-resident agent of the assessee

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

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 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

6,72,73,511 7,43,67,554 (70,94,043) D Copper 28-Feb-11 195 309.69 7,50,58,176 8.19,79,890 (69,21,714) E Zinc 30-Jun-11 5 25.47 21,54,750 22,93,250 (1,38,500) TOTAL 26,96,36,291 28,43,83,211 (1,52,46,920) 3.2 During

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

6. The Ld. AR submitted that during the year company has settled disputes for claims for rate difference by the Jute Bags Supplier. Civil Suits were filed for damages and compensation for unilateral termination/cancellation of contract. Payment is compensatory in nature and thus the same is not covered by the explanation to Section

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

6. The Ld. AR submitted that during the year company has settled disputes for claims for rate difference by the Jute Bags Supplier. Civil Suits were filed for damages and compensation for unilateral termination/cancellation of contract. Payment is compensatory in nature and thus the same is not covered by the explanation to Section

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.

6 of 14 Asstt. Year 2012-13 by various decisions of different High Courts including this court which has already been referred to above. (2) In the instant case, the assessee-company being NBFC is governed by the provisions of RBI Act. In such a case, interest income cannot be said to have accrued to the assessee having regard

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 of income earned by the assessee by way of dividend interest of PPF and long term capital gain which was all deleted by the ld.CIT(A) noting that all these investments had been made in the personal accounts

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

6. Now, in the first place, the Privy Council was not considering the case of a trading loss. The Privy Council was considering a specific allowance claimed under the provisions of section 10 (2) of the Income-tax Act, and even in deciding that the Privy Council felt difficulty, and were not made in the process of earning profits. They

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

6. Now, in the first place, the Privy Council was not considering the case of a trading loss. The Privy Council was considering a specific allowance claimed under the provisions of section 10 (2) of the Income-tax Act, and even in deciding that the Privy Council felt difficulty, and were not made in the process of earning profits. They

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

6. Now, in the first place, the Privy Council was not considering the case of a trading loss. The Privy Council was considering a specific allowance claimed under the provisions of section 10 (2) of the Income-tax Act, and even in deciding that the Privy Council felt difficulty, and were not made in the process of earning profits. They

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

6. Now, in the first place, the Privy Council was not considering the case of a trading loss. The Privy Council was considering a specific allowance claimed under the provisions of section 10 (2) of the Income-tax Act, and even in deciding that the Privy Council felt difficulty, and were not made in the process of earning profits. They

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

6. Now, in the first place, the Privy Council was not considering the case of a trading loss. The Privy Council was considering a specific allowance claimed under the provisions of section 10 (2) of the Income-tax Act, and even in deciding that the Privy Council felt difficulty, and were not made in the process of earning profits. They

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

6. Now, in the first place, the Privy Council was not considering the case of a trading loss. The Privy Council was considering a specific allowance claimed under the provisions of section 10 (2) of the Income-tax Act, and even in deciding that the Privy Council felt difficulty, and were not made in the process of earning profits. They

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

THE ITO, WARD-2(2),, JAMNAGAR vs. SMT. SHITALBEN SAURABH VORA,, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

section 36(1 )(va) of the I. T. Act, 1961. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 2,30,754/- u/s. 40A(3) of the LT. Act, 1961. 4. That, Learned AD has wrongly assessed interest income of Rs. 1,43,91,7751- as part of net profit from "Business & Profession

M/S. SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. ,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DCIT, SURENDRANAGR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

section 36(1 )(va) of the I. T. Act, 1961. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 2,30,754/- u/s. 40A(3) of the LT. Act, 1961. 4. That, Learned AD has wrongly assessed interest income of Rs. 1,43,91,7751- as part of net profit from "Business & Profession

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

6. The assessing officer noticed that during the year under consideration (AY 2018-19), the Hon'ble NCLT, vide order, dated 22nd October, 2018, has approved the scheme of amalgamation of Gandhi Realty (India) Pvt. Ltd ('Transferor Company -1 having PAN- AACCG5189K) and Crystal Organisers Pvt Ltd (Transferor Company-2, having PAN-AADCC2130R) got amalgamated with J.B. Realties