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. 129 & 150/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 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. 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

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 Vs Tax, Central Circle-2, 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 I.T.A Nos. 128 & 149/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise

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 Vs Tax, Central Circle-2, 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 I.T.A Nos. 128 & 149/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Enterprise

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

19 Agreement No. ADB/2 Mahua Road Repairing only 23 Agreement No. CE/6. Repairing of road 25 Agreement No. CE/6. Repairing of road 26 Agreement for Road Repairing only. I.T.A Nos. 216, 217, 203 & 211/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page No 4 M/s Classic Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. M/s. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. 28 Agreement for Road

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

19 Agreement No. ADB/2 Mahua Road Repairing only 23 Agreement No. CE/6. Repairing of road 25 Agreement No. CE/6. Repairing of road 26 Agreement for Road Repairing only. I.T.A Nos. 216, 217, 203 & 211/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page No 4 M/s Classic Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. M/s. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. 28 Agreement for Road

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

19 Agreement No. ADB/2 Mahua Road Repairing only 23 Agreement No. CE/6. Repairing of road 25 Agreement No. CE/6. Repairing of road 26 Agreement for Road Repairing only. I.T.A Nos. 216, 217, 203 & 211/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page No 4 M/s Classic Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. M/s. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. 28 Agreement for Road

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

19 Agreement No. ADB/2 Mahua Road Repairing only 23 Agreement No. CE/6. Repairing of road 25 Agreement No. CE/6. Repairing of road 26 Agreement for Road Repairing only. I.T.A Nos. 216, 217, 203 & 211/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page No 4 M/s Classic Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. M/s. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. 28 Agreement for Road

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

house property of Rs. 1,05,788/-. However, Hon. CIT(A) confirm the disallowance of Rs. 4,97,284/-. Hon. CIT(A) has not allowed deduction of expenses from professional fees earned and interest on capital from partnership firm. Appellant's contention; 4. With respect to the deduction of expenses from interest on capital we submit that that income received

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

house property of Rs. 1,05,788/-. However, Hon. CIT(A) confirm the disallowance of Rs. 4,97,284/-. Hon. CIT(A) has not allowed deduction of expenses from professional fees earned and interest on capital from partnership firm. Appellant's contention; 4. With respect to the deduction of expenses from interest on capital we submit that that income received

BHARATBHAI NARSHIBHAI PATEL,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.47/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10) Bharatbhai Narsibhai Patel The Acit बनाम/ Prop Of M/S.Pushpam Circle-2 Vs. Creation Rajkot Mehul Textile Nagar Sant Kabir Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adppp 6615 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Pravin Verma, Sr.Dr

house property from the side of the wife of the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the view that this fact needs to be verified by the authorities below. Accordingly, we are inclined to restore this issue to the file of AO for the limited verification of the fact whether there were any contributions in the investment in residential property

SHRI SANJAYBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

property he had stated that he took the plot in 1964 from the housing society which was constructing the bungalow for which the assessee made contribution from time to time and took possession in 1974 when only one ground floor was constructed. He had been living there and during 1986 to 1988 he had constructed the first floor

SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

property he had stated that he took the plot in 1964 from the housing society which was constructing the bungalow for which the assessee made contribution from time to time and took possession in 1974 when only one ground floor was constructed. He had been living there and during 1986 to 1988 he had constructed the first floor

SHRI KISHOR GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

property he had stated that he took the plot in 1964 from the housing society which was constructing the bungalow for which the assessee made contribution from time to time and took possession in 1974 when only one ground floor was constructed. He had been living there and during 1986 to 1988 he had constructed the first floor

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 20. Now we take ITA No.388/Rjt/2013. 21. In this appeal, grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.28,30,000/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that sub-clause (iii) of section