BATAVA DEVLI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,BATAVA DEVLI, TAL. KUNLAVA, DIST. AMRELI. vs. THE ADIT, (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

5 Batava Devli Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. ADIT (CPC) adjustment made by the CPC was beyond the scope of section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act. The counsel for the assessee submitted that 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act was amended w.e.f. 01-04-2021 and hence any prima facie adjustment relating to denial of deduction when

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-3(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. SONPAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD., RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Dcit, Circle – 3(1), Vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rajkot Aayakar Bhavan, Room Dhari Bagsara Road, Nr. Ice No. 114, 1St Floor, Race Course Factory, Amreli Ring Road, Rajkot Pan No.: Aajcs0177N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am; By Way Of This Appeal, The Revenue, Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 16.11.2017, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Grievances Raised By The Revenue, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,96,33,023/- Holding That Provision Of Section 195 Will Not Be Applicable. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred In Ignoring The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of Foreign Commission Expenses Before The A.O. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of The C.I.T. (A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The A.O. Be Restored To The Above Extent. Dcit Vs. M/S. Sonpal Export Pvt. Ltd.

5(2)(b). The point of time when commission agent's right to receive the commission fructifies is irrelevant to decide the scope of Explanation 1 to Section 9(1)(i) which is what is material in the context of the situation that we are in seisin of. The revenue's case before us hinges on the applicability of Section

AMBARADI SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,AMBARADI , DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT(CPC), BANGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P was correctly

SHREE SANALIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,LITAL MOTALILIYA SANALIYA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P was correctly

AMRUTPUR SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,VILLAGE: - AMRUTPUR TALUKA DHARI, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P was correctly

DHARESHWAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. ,VILLAGE: - DHARESHWAR, TALUKA: - RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P was correctly

CHAKARGADH SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,CHAKARGADH SEVA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT(CPC),, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

1) of the Act. In view of this, the disallowance made by the CPC is upheld Therefore, ground no 3 of the appeal is dismissed.” 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A) denying assessee’s claim of exemption under section

ALIUDEPUR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,ALIUDEPUR VILLAGE, TALUKA LATHI, DIST.: - AMRELI-365430 vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

5 Aliudepur Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Ors. vs. ADIT (CPC) filed within the due date as specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. Section 80AC is reproduced below: "Deduction not to be allowed unless return furnished. 80AC. Where in computing the total income of an assessee of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after

SHREE ANTALIYA KHETI VIKAS KARYAKARI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,LILIYA MOTA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

5 Aliudepur Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Ors. vs. ADIT (CPC) filed within the due date as specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. Section 80AC is reproduced below: "Deduction not to be allowed unless return furnished. 80AC. Where in computing the total income of an assessee of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after

DAHIDA SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED ,VILLAGE: - DAHIDA, DIST.:- AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

5 Aliudepur Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Ors. vs. ADIT (CPC) filed within the due date as specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. Section 80AC is reproduced below: "Deduction not to be allowed unless return furnished. 80AC. Where in computing the total income of an assessee of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after

ACIT, CIR-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD, RAJKOT

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.188/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Tax, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot Limited Room No.502, Aayakar Bhawan, Jilla Bankbhavan, Kasturba Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot- Opp: Chaudhary High School, 360001 Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaar0564K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr : 09/06 /2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08 /2025

disallowance of Rs. 1,87,65,201/- on account of excess claim of deduction u/s 36(1) (viii) of the Act by way of letter/submission during the assessment proceeding. 2. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law on facts in directing to allowed deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- as against

M/S CHOKSHI VACHHRAJ MAKANJI & CO.,JUNAGADH vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE - 1 (1), RAJKOT - GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

5) The Appellant reserves his right to add, amend or withdraw any of the ground of appeal.” 3. The brief issue for consideration before us is whether Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of late payment of employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC of Rs. 91,369/- under Section 36(1

SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

5) of section 32AB.\n7. The dispute in the present case is in regard to the question whether the assessee's investment\nin the UTI is business, and if so, is it a business which qualifies to be an 'eligible business'\nunder section 32AB? In regard to the first aspect, we must note that the Tribunal as a question

SHREE LUNIDHAR SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,LUNIDHAR, TALUKA KUNKAVAV, DIST. AMRELI. vs. ASSESSING OFFICER (CPC), , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

5 Shree Lunidhar Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. vs. A.O. Hence, the action of CPC is bad in law and therefore Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in holding that the assessee is not eligible for claiming deduction under section 80P of the Act for not filing return within the due date prescribed under section 139(1

AMRELI JILLA MADHYASTH SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,AMRELI vs. THE DCIT-ACIT-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.548/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Sahakari The Dcit/Acit-2(1) बनाम Bank Ltd. Rajkot. Bhojalram Bhavan Vs. Rajmahel Road Amreli 365 601. Pan : Aaata 2737 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M.Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

disallowed deduction on ground that applicant had not made a provision for bad and doubtful debts as required by section 36(1) (viia)(c) On facts, it was clear that intention of assessee was for deduction under section 36(1)(via) only, though 'provision' was nomenclatured as 'reserve'- Whether even if entry was termed as 'reserve' which according to assessee

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

disallowable under section 37(1) of the Act; ITA (TP)No.97/RJT/2016 and 2 Others 22 alternatively, the AO held that the commission expenses were liable to withholding tax in India, since as per the AO, Pohjola Bank Plc had business connection/ permanent establishment(PE) in India in terms of section 9(1)(1) read with explanation 1(a), explanation

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

disallowable under section 37(1) of the Act; ITA (TP)No.97/RJT/2016 and 2 Others 22 alternatively, the AO held that the commission expenses were liable to withholding tax in India, since as per the AO, Pohjola Bank Plc had business connection/ permanent establishment(PE) in India in terms of section 9(1)(1) read with explanation 1(a), explanation

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

disallowable under section 37(1) of the Act; ITA (TP)No.97/RJT/2016 and 2 Others 22 alternatively, the AO held that the commission expenses were liable to withholding tax in India, since as per the AO, Pohjola Bank Plc had business connection/ permanent establishment(PE) in India in terms of section 9(1)(1) read with explanation 1(a), explanation

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

1. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1 ("the Principal CIT") has erred in fact and in law in cancelling the Order passed u/s 143(3) dated 04.03.2014 and directing the Assessing Officer to "pass a fresh assessment order", by invoking powers u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") despite the fact that the mandatory