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

Housing Tax, Central Circle-2, Vs Board, Kalawad Road, Rajkot Rajkot (Appellant) PAN: AABCB9255E (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 06-07-2022 Date of pronouncement : 28-09-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH:- I.T.A Nos. 127 & 148/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 2 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT

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

Housing Tax, Central Circle-2, Vs Board, Kalawad Road, Rajkot Rajkot (Appellant) PAN: AABCB9255E (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 06-07-2022 Date of pronouncement : 28-09-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH:- I.T.A Nos. 127 & 148/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 2 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT

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

Housing Tax, Central Circle-2, Vs Board, Kalawad Road, Rajkot Rajkot (Appellant) PAN: AABCB9255E (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 06-07-2022 Date of pronouncement : 28-09-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH:- I.T.A Nos. 126 & 147/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No 2 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT

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

Housing Tax, Central Circle-2, Vs Board, Kalawad Road, Rajkot Rajkot (Appellant) PAN: AABCB9255E (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 06-07-2022 Date of pronouncement : 28-09-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH:- I.T.A Nos. 126 & 147/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No 2 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT

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

13 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise Ltd. take retrospective effect from 1st April, 2000 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2000-2001 and subsequent years. 6.2 A reading of the various Statutory provisions read with the Memorandum brings out the following salient features of claim of deduction under section 80-IA

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

13 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise Ltd. take retrospective effect from 1st April, 2000 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2000-2001 and subsequent years. 6.2 A reading of the various Statutory provisions read with the Memorandum brings out the following salient features of claim of deduction under section 80-IA

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,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

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

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

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

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:

housing projects in order to avail excess deduction of Section 80IB(10) of the Act.In itself, such a claim is a misrepresentation of facts which would have succeeded but for selection of case in scrutiny and detection thereof in assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that misrepresentation has led to underreporting of income, therefore, ld.CIT(A), confirmed

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)

ia)……..; (ib)…….- (ii)…….; (iia) [Ommited by the Finance Act,1999, w.e.f. 1-4-2000;] ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 (iii) the amount of the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession, Provided…… Explanation.-……..,” 24.The above provision mandates that

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)

ia)……..; (ib)…….- (ii)…….; (iia) [Ommited by the Finance Act,1999, w.e.f. 1-4-2000;] ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 (iii) the amount of the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession, Provided…… Explanation.-……..,” 24.The above provision mandates that