PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground of\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars, whereas the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing\nOfficer on the ground of concealment of particulars. It is by now well settled that while\nissuing a notice under section 271(1)(c

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground of\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars, whereas the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing\nOfficer on the ground of concealment of particulars. It is by now well settled that while\nissuing a notice under section 271(1)(c

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground of\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars, whereas the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing\nOfficer on the ground of concealment of particulars. It is by now well settled that while\nissuing a notice under section 271(1)(c

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground of\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars, whereas the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing\nOfficer on the ground of concealment of particulars. It is by now well settled that while\nissuing a notice under section 271(1)(c

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground of\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars, whereas the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing\nOfficer on the ground of concealment of particulars. It is by now well settled that while\nissuing a notice under section 271(1)(c

GODHAVADAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,GODHAVADAR, LILIYA MOTA, AMRELI-365535 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)

6,53,498/- under section 80P of the Act. The issue for consideration before us is that whether once the return of income is filed beyond the prescribed date under section 139(1) of the Act, can the deduction under section 80P of the Act be denied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section 143(1

THE DCIT, (INTL. TAXN.), RAJKOT vs. M/S. KOREA SOUTH EAST POWER CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit (Intl. Taxn.) M/S.Korea South East Power Amruta Estate Co.Ltd. Room No.312 Mg Road बनाम/ C/O. P.V. Page & Co., Girnar Cinema 201, Sardar Griha, 198 L.T. Marg Vs. Rajkot Mumbai – 400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Pan : Ahvps 3555Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

disallowance of claim of the assessee will not attract the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and has relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.)Ltd. reported in (2010) 189 Taxman 322 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under

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)

C.— Deductions in respect of certain incomes" (which includes deduction under section 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. This amendment has been introduced w.e.f. 1-4-2021. Accordingly, the above amendment would not apply to the impugned assessment year. Further, section

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

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

c) of the Act by stating that the return of income was filed under Section 139(4) of the Act and provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(b) of the Act do not provide for denial of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. Even when the return of income is not filed within the time limit as per Section

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

c) of the Act by stating that the return of income was filed under Section 139(4) of the Act and provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(b) of the Act do not provide for denial of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. Even when the return of income is not filed within the time limit as per Section

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

c) of the Act by stating that the return of income was filed under Section 139(4) of the Act and provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(b) of the Act do not provide for denial of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. Even when the return of income is not filed within the time limit as per 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

c) of the Act by stating that the return of income was filed under Section 139(4) of the Act and provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(b) of the Act do not provide for denial of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. Even when the return of income is not filed within the time limit as per Section

ITO WARD 3(1)(4), RAJKOT-STATION- AMRELI, AMRELI, GUJARAT vs. AVADH AGRI EXPORTS, AMRELI, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

c) Explanation 2 has been inserted in section 195(1), w.e.f A.Y. 1962-63 to clarify that obligation to comply with section 195(1) and to make deduction there under applies and shall be deemed to have always applied and extends and shall be deemed to have always extended to all persons, resident or non-resident, whether

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.

1. Jaya Inc. Korea Commission Rs.12,13,74,525 No 2. Yuyao Shenghao Intl Co China Commission Rs. 80,21,825 No Ltd. 3. Baruffi Andrea Switzerland Commission Rs. 10,35,000 No 4. C & D Logistics Group Co China Commission Rs. 5,98,740 No Ltd 5. Climus Maxus Ltd Hong-Kong Commission Rs. 6,26,182 No 6

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)

C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes" (which includes deduction under section 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. This amendment has been introduced w.e.f. 1-4-2021. Accordingly, the above amendment would not apply to the impugned assessment year. Further, 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)

C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes" (which includes deduction under section 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. This amendment has been introduced w.e.f. 1-4-2021. Accordingly, the above amendment would not apply to the impugned assessment year. Further, section

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)

C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes" (which includes deduction under section 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. This amendment has been introduced w.e.f. 1-4-2021. Accordingly, the above amendment would not apply to the impugned assessment year. Further, section

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)

C.— Deductions in respect of certain incomes" (which includes deduction under section 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. This amendment has been introduced w.e.f. 1-4-2021. Accordingly, the above amendment would not apply to the impugned assessment year. Further, section