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

house property, it is to submit that during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, I had suo-moto offered deemed rental income\nof Rs. 72.000/-p.a. looking to the locality and standardized rent in the area. However,\nwhile finalizing the assessment for the year under consideration, an addition of Rs.\n1,80,000/- was made without bringing any credible evidence

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

house property, it is to submit that during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, I had suo-moto offered deemed rental income\nof Rs. 72.000/-p.a. looking to the locality and standardized rent in the area. However,\nwhile finalizing the assessment for the year under consideration, an addition of Rs.\n1,80,000/- was made without bringing any credible evidence

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

house property, it is to submit that during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, I had suo-moto offered deemed rental income\nof Rs. 72.000/-p.a. looking to the locality and standardized rent in the area. However,\nwhile finalizing the assessment for the year under consideration, an addition of Rs.\n1,80,000/- was made without bringing any credible evidence

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

house property, it is to submit that during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, I had suo-moto offered deemed rental income\nof Rs. 72.000/-p.a. looking to the locality and standardized rent in the area. However,\nwhile finalizing the assessment for the year under consideration, an addition of Rs.\n1,80,000/- was made without bringing any credible evidence

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

house property, it is to submit that during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, I had suo-moto offered deemed rental income\nof Rs. 72.000/-p.a. looking to the locality and standardized rent in the area. However,\nwhile finalizing the assessment for the year under consideration, an addition of Rs.\n1,80,000/- was made without bringing any credible evidence

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. GYANGANGA EDUCATION SOCIETY,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar

house property, higher of municipal valuation or fair rent is taken into account. Furthermore the rental agreements clearly mention that besides building other amenities like furniture, electrical fittings, parking and open ground was also used by the trust. Thus the assessing officer is not correct in making comparison with the municipal valuation and the assessee has made excessive payment

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. GYANGANGA EDUCATION SOCIETY,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar

house property, higher of municipal valuation or fair rent is taken into account. Furthermore the rental agreements clearly mention that besides building other amenities like furniture, electrical fittings, parking and open ground was also used by the trust. Thus the assessing officer is not correct in making comparison with the municipal valuation and the assessee has made excessive payment

THE JT. CIT (EXEMPTIONS)(OSD), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. GYANGANGA EDUCATION SOCIETY,, RAJKOT

In the result, the Revenue appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: Us That This Similar Issue Is Being Adjudicated By The Very Same Bench Of This Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case In Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rjt/2015 Vide Order Dated 29.06.2022 Relating To The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. Further This Order Has Been Followed In Ita No. 472, 1170 & 2316/Ahd/2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 By Order Dated 31.08.2022. Now The Present Assessment Year Is 2015-16, Which Is Fully Covered By The Above Orders Of This Tribunal & Copy Of The Orders Are Also Placed On Record.

house property, higher of municipal valuation or fair rent is taken into account. Furthermore the rental agreements clearly mention that besides building other amenities like furniture, electrical fittings, parking and open ground I.T.A No. 369/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 11 was also used by the trust. Thus the assessing officer is not correct in making comparison with the municipal

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

13,650/- by making addition on account of excess claim of deduction u/s 36(1) (viii) of Rs. 75,15,201/-.The appellant is a Co-operative society engaged in the business of providing banking services. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that the appellant had claimed deduction u/s 36(1) (viii) at Rs.2

SHREE BAUA BHAVIK MANDAL NANI TUMBDI,KUTCH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.367/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (Na) (Hybridhearing) Shree Baua Bhavik Mandal Vs. Cit(Exemption), Nani Tumbdi- Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad.

property of the trust or institution for the benefit of any person referred to in sub section (3) if such use or application is by way of compliance with a mandatory term of the trust or a mandatory rule governing the institution.Sir, our trust is registered under Gujarat Public Trust Act on dt. 11/05/2017. However the Idol of God Sachhamata

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year :2012-13 Dcit, Cir.1(1) M/S.Aryan Arcade P.Ltd. Rajkot. Vs C/O. Milestone Property Mg Basement Grant Central Mall Rajkot.

c) The assessee was incorporated on 4th November, 2004. The entire share capital of the assessee company was owned by J.P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.The assessee purchased land at Raikot and started construction of 6 a building which is to be used as a commercial mall. The construction of the mall was shown as capital work in progress alongwith cost

SHRI AJAYBHAI ISHWARLAL GOGIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) (5), RAJKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

House, M.G. Vs Rajkot (Respondent) Road, Rajkot PAN: ABFPG8977N (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 08-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 18-04-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011-12, arises from order

SHRI BHAKTINAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO 3 (1) (1), RAJKOT

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.200/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Bhakti Nagar Co Operative Housing Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1) Society Ltd. (Bhaktinagar Circle, Meghani Rang Bhavan, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot) Rong Road, A D Vyas & Co, Charted Accounts, Kotecha Rajkot - 360001 Nagar Main Road, Opp Kotecha Girl’S School, Off Kalawad Road. Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas2363M (Appellant) (Respondent)

13 /02 /2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08 /05 /2025 SHRI BHAKTINAGAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ITA NO. 200 & Co. 03/RJT/2024 (AY 2014-15) आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA JM; Captioned appeal filed by assessee and Cross Objection filed by the revenue, pertaining to same Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, are directed against orders passed by Commissioner

ASHWINBHAI CHUNILAL BHAYANI,,OKHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, DWARKA

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.363/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Anilbhai Chunilal Bhayani Ito, Ward-1(4) C/O. J.C. & Co., Dwarka. Vs Okha Port, Okha – 361 350. Pan : Abvpb 6284 D

13. We have considered rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. We find that both the authorities have not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee about the usage of the properties for the business purpose, and estimation of the rental value of the properties. The ld.AO rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that

ANILBHAI CHUNILAL BHAYANI,,OKHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, DWARKA

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.363/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Anilbhai Chunilal Bhayani Ito, Ward-1(4) C/O. J.C. & Co., Dwarka. Vs Okha Port, Okha – 361 350. Pan : Abvpb 6284 D

13. We have considered rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. We find that both the authorities have not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee about the usage of the properties for the business purpose, and estimation of the rental value of the properties. The ld.AO rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S DML EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

property in India or control and management vested in India, are not satisfied in the present case. The commission expenses paid on export sales to a non-resident admittedly for services rendered outside India is not coming under the purview of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It is relevant to mention that the ‘commission’ simpliciter is not fees

M/S. D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

property in India or control and management vested in India, are not satisfied in the present case. The commission expenses paid on export sales to a non-resident admittedly for services rendered outside India is not coming under the purview of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It is relevant to mention that the ‘commission’ simpliciter is not fees

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

property in India or control and management vested in India, are not satisfied in the present case. The commission expenses paid on export sales to a non-resident admittedly for services rendered outside India is not coming under the purview of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It is relevant to mention that the ‘commission’ simpliciter is not fees

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

C. Thacker, vehemently argued that assessee, has huge funds of Rs.28,34,76,940/-, available, as on 31-03-2011, on which no interest is payable, as against interest-free advances given to parties of Rs.4,35,00,000/-. This included Rs.2,15,00,000/- given to Maharaja Salt Works, as advance for purchase of salt. The said party failed