BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 801A of the Appellant on the ground that 'Interest and Remuneration received by the partner cannot be said to have been derived from the business of an industrial undertaking (a) But it is a very well settled law that a firm is not a legal person even though it has same attributes of personality

FRIENDS SALT WORKS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES,GANDHIDHAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 29.12.2019. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows (ITA No. 99/Rjt/2023- A.Y. 2015-16) : “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,63,690

FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALLIED INDS.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE GANDHIDHAM,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 29.12.2019. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows (ITA No. 99/Rjt/2023- A.Y. 2015-16) : “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,63,690

AMITSINH NANABHA RANA,,WANKANER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, MORBI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2012-13 Amitsinh Nababha Rana Ito, Ward-1 At. Divijay Nagar Vs Morbi. Wankaner. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent)

690 194C IVRCL Ltd. 2091670 20918 193 Sahara India Real 2595 519 194D Bajaj Allianz Life 80259 8026 2181419 30513 4. On question by the AO, the assessee submitted that it has executed the contract which was awarded by the company namely IVRCL LTD. based in Hyderabad for an amount of Rs. 20,91,670.00 which was outsourced to various

M/S J.K. TRANSPORT & CONSTR. CO.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- I.T.A No. 168/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2004-05 Page No 2 M/s. J.K. Transport & Constr. Co. vs. Dy. CIT “1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Rajkot erred in confirming imposition of penalty

VASANTABEN RAMESHBHAI SHERASHIYA,,MORBI vs. ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, MORBI CIRCLE,, MORBI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकरअपीलसं.Ita No. 48/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Sh. Vasantaben R Vs. Acit Sherashiya Morbi Circle, Surbhi, Subhas Nagar, Morbi Ravapar Road, Morbi

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is against the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the penalty levied by the ACIT. 3. The fact in brief is that assessment u/s. 143(3) was completed on 25.02.2016 determining total income

ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GRENIC TILES PVT LTD, MORBI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

section\n68 of the Act.\n7.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the\nmatter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition\nmade by the assessing officer.The ld.CIT(A) noticed that once the overall\nexpenses are not disproportionate compared to earlier year and no specific\nitem has been pointed out which

GRENIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED,WANKANER-MORBI vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1) RKT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

section\n68 of the Act.\n7.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the\nmatter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition\nmade by the assessing officer.The ld.CIT(A) noticed that once the overall\nexpenses are not disproportionate compared to earlier year and no specific\nitem has been pointed out which