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

94,57,783/- as opposed to Rs.53,11,37,045/- shown by the assessee; resulting in proposed adjustment of Rs.15,893,20,738/ on account of determination of ALP of the international transactions of sales. The assessee objected to the aforesaid proposed adjustment before the DRP who dismissed all the objections of the assessee, and accordingly, the adjustment of Rs.15.83

PRANAM ENTERPRISE,JUNAGADH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.391/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pranam Enterprise Vs. The Dcit Office No.3, City Centre, Opp. Circle-1(1), Rajkot New Collector Office, Junagadh – 362001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffp7926H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

7), where underreported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by any person, the penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be equal to two hundred per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (9) The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall be the following, namely:— (a) misrepresentation

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

94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 5. We have heard the respective parties and also perused the relevant materials available on record. 6. The case

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 5. We have heard the respective parties and also perused the relevant materials available on record. 6. The case

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 5. We have heard the respective parties and also perused the relevant materials available on record. 6. The case

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 5. We have heard the respective parties and also perused the relevant materials available on record. 6. The case

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 5. We have heard the respective parties and also perused the relevant materials available on record. 6. The case

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 5. We have heard the respective parties and also perused the relevant materials available on record. 6. The case

PUNABHAI G. PARDAVA,,DHARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4),, AMRELI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance of rent to the tune of 30% was prospective in nature and therefore the same cannot be applied in the year under consideration. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. The learned AR before us filed the written submissions by reiterating the contentions made before the authorities

M/S. RISHI KIRAN LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE JOINT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX,, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

94,549/- by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act on the alleged ground that appellant failed to prove one-to-one nexus from bank account that investment has been done entirely from its own funds. (vi) Alleged that assessee (i) paid excessive terminal handling charges to Shreeji Power and Insulators Pvt. Ltd. [SPIPL] and (ii) paid

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S RISHI KIRAN LOGISTICS P. LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

94,549/- by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act on the alleged ground that appellant failed to prove one-to-one nexus from bank account that investment has been done entirely from its own funds. (vi) Alleged that assessee (i) paid excessive terminal handling charges to Shreeji Power and Insulators Pvt. Ltd. [SPIPL] and (ii) paid

THE ITO, WARD 1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S PAVAN CONSTRUCTION CO, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

94,185/- 2. Vehicle repairing expenses 15,81,311/- 3. Telephone expenses 90,863/- Total 18,66,359/- 44.1 The AO during the assessment proceedings was of the view that the personal use out of the above expenses cannot be ruled out. Therefore he made the disallowance of Rs. 3,73,272/- being

SHREE MEENAWALA CASTING,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKTO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

94,78,973/- by the AO, and accordingly carry forward loss was “Nil” for Assessment Year 2015-16 as per assessment order. The assessee firm had filed first appeal against the addition and decision of Ld. CIT(Appeals) is awaited. Since, carry forward of loss for Assessment Year 2015-16 was “Nil”, set off losses of Rs.58,86,823/- availed

ALPHA HI-TECH FUEL LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SNR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.578-581/Rjt/2008 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2000-01 To 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.67/Rjt/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05) बनाम/ Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Limited, Cit(Appeals)-Xvi, Station Road, Lakhtar, Dist. Ahmedabad. Vs. Surrendranagar, Gujarat-382775 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4258P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar Das, Dr. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 16/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Rajkot [Cit(A) In Short] Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2000-01 To 2004-05. Ita No.578-581/Rjt/2008 A.Y.S 2000-01 To 2004-05 First We Take Assessee’S Appeal Bearing Ita No. 578/Rjt/2008. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

7. However, the learned DR for the Revenue before us relied on the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned orders and the case laws cited therein. Before we proceed to enquire whether the reopening under section 147 of the Act was valid as per the provisions

ALPHA HI-TECH FUEL LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.578-581/Rjt/2008 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2000-01 To 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.67/Rjt/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05) बनाम/ Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Limited, Cit(Appeals)-Xvi, Station Road, Lakhtar, Dist. Ahmedabad. Vs. Surrendranagar, Gujarat-382775 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4258P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar Das, Dr. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 16/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Rajkot [Cit(A) In Short] Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2000-01 To 2004-05. Ita No.578-581/Rjt/2008 A.Y.S 2000-01 To 2004-05 First We Take Assessee’S Appeal Bearing Ita No. 578/Rjt/2008. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

7. However, the learned DR for the Revenue before us relied on the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned orders and the case laws cited therein. Before we proceed to enquire whether the reopening under section 147 of the Act was valid as per the provisions

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD. RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: us, the error noted in the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned year i.e. AY 2017-18 was that the assessee’s claim of deduction for creation of special reserve from the profit of “eligible business” as per Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had been allowed in excess by the Assessing Officer without properly examining the calculation of the claim submitted by the assessee.

94,107/- u/s 36(1)(viii) for creation of special reserve from profit of "eligible business" as mentioned in the section. Further, the assessee bank vide submission dated 10.12.2019 has furnished exhibit-1 showing the calculation of segment wise computation of profit from "eligible business". However, the computation furnished by assessee bank calculating the profit from "eligible business

BACKBONE ENTERPRISE LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company.” 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) discussed facts of each of the individual projects carried out by the assessee on merits, and based on the analysis of each of the projects, gave part relief to the assessee. The Department and the assessee are in appeal

THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company.” 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) discussed facts of each of the individual projects carried out by the assessee on merits, and based on the analysis of each of the projects, gave part relief to the assessee. The Department and the assessee are in appeal