ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, 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

801 or section 801A or section 80J or section 80JJ are allowable in case of the partner also. Which prior to 01.04.1993 were not allowable. Further two new sections has been inserted into the Act. i.e. section 10(2A) and section 28(v) of the Act. As per section 10(2A) of the Act share of profit of the firm

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ADDI. CIT, RANGE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

801 or section 801A or section 80J or section 80JJ are allowable in case\nof the partner also. Which prior to 01.04.1993 were not allowable.\nFurther two new sections has been inserted into the Act. i.e. section 10(2A) and section 28(v)\nof the Act.\nAs per section 10(2A) of the Act share of profit of the firm

ASSISTANT COMMISSINER OF IINCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

801 or section 801A or section 80J or section 80JJ are allowable in case\nof the partner also. Which prior to 01.04.1993 were not allowable.\nFurther two new sections has been inserted into the Act. i.e. section 10(2A) and section 28(v)\nof the Act.\nAs per section 10(2A) of the Act share of profit of the firm

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

801 or section 801A or section 80J or section 80JJ are allowable in case\nof the partner also. Which prior to 01.04.1993 were not allowable.\nFurther two new sections has been inserted into the Act. i.e. section 10(2A) and section 28(v)\nof the Act.\nAs per section 10(2A) of the Act share of profit of the firm

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

801 or section 801A or section 80J or section 80JJ are allowable in case\nof the partner also. Which prior to 01.04.1993 were not allowable.\nFurther two new sections has been inserted into the Act. i.e. section 10(2A) and section 28(v)\nof the Act.\nAs per section 10(2A) of the Act share of profit of the firm

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

801 or section 801A or section 80J or section 80JJ are allowable in case\nof the partner also. Which prior to 01.04.1993 were not allowable.\nFurther two new sections has been inserted into the Act. i.e. section 10(2A) and section 28(v)\nof the Act.\nAs per section 10(2A) of the Act share of profit of the firm

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

801 or section 801A or section 80J or section 80JJ are allowable in case\nof the partner also. Which prior to 01.04.1993 were not allowable.\nFurther two new sections has been inserted into the Act. i.e. section 10(2A) and section 28(v)\nof the Act.\nAs per section 10(2A) of the Act share of profit of the firm

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.

disallowed in computing its total Income. 6. In response, the assessee submitted written submissions, before the assessing officer along with documentary evidences. The assessee submitted that it is engaged in the export business and the assessee has been selling its products outside India with the help of various foreign agents. The assessee has paid commission/brokerage to the non- residents

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

section 43(5). It is immaterial whether transaction is carried out at the recognized stock exchange or not. Even the circular of CBDT cited in the assessment order states that once it is established that the assessee has entered in the transaction of the commodity that they deal the other technical details have no material impact. Hence, this reasoning

THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. BACKBONE ENTERPRISE LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance made u/s. 80IA of the Act of Rs. 1,61,47,208/-. The primary thrust of the arguments of ld. Departmental Representative was that the benefit of section 80IA(4) has to be granted only to “developer” and such benefit is not meant to be extended to “a contractor/works contractor”. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the primary difference

HANSA JITENDRA HARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

801(SC) and it was held that the so called evidence in the form of mere paper work cannot vitiate the decision made on the attending circumstances and human probabilities and accordingly the ITAT disallowed the claim of capital gains on a penny stock company. The PCIT also relied upon the ITAT Delhi bench in the case of Anip Rastogi

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI HARESHKUMAR MANILAL SOMAIYA,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed, आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 191/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Shri Hareshkumar Manilal Somaiya, Circle-2, Vs. Prop Of Rohit Trading Co., Jamnagar. 3-B, Milap Chamber, Grain Market, Jamnagar.

disallowance made by the AO with respect to the interest expenses which was having direct nexuses with the loan. Thus, it is implied that AO on one hand has accepted the genuineness of the interest expenses but having doubt on the amount of loan on which the interest was paid. According to the learned AR, the AO has taken contradictory

MANOJBHAI ARVINDBHAI PAREKH,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 385 /Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Manojbhai Arvindbhai Parekh The Acit Of I. T. Circle – 2(1), Shreeji Giriraj Trading, 19-Giriraj Vs. Rajkot – 360001 Chamber, Old Gadhiwas Soni Bazar, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acypp1471C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

801 (SC)], the Supreme Court emphasized that claims contradicting common human behaviour and market probabilities should not be accepted without substantive evidence. In that case, the Court rejected Sumati Dayal's claim of frequent horse race winnings due to the improbability of such events occurring naturally. Applying this principle here, the sudden and unnatural surge in high-value cash sales

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.498/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S Real Procon Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Saneshwar Complex, Rajkot. Opp. Balalji Hall, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot.

disallowed. Accordingly the AO estimated the commission expenses @ 3 % of gross transaction which comes at Rs. 6,75,00,000/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A who deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: 4.4 I have perused the assessment order

M/S. MADHURAM CONSTRUCTION CO. JUNAGADH,JUNAGADH vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

801\n8,39,32,876\n4\nGross receipts from contract work:\na)\nContract work income\n44,02,52,302\n75,44,57,792\nb)\nSub contract income\n9,38,54,535\n32,03,406\nc)\nOther construction income\n14,10,560\nd)\nMaterial sales\n31,23,533\n24,85,273\nGross receipts of contract work