SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

house Property instead of business income and considering\nthe same as not eligible for computing deduction u/s 801A though the Rent Income has\ndirect nexus with the 80IA eligible business activity of the assessee, being income\nderived from the business and further issue is covered in favour of assessee by the\ndecision of Rajkot bench in assessee's case

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

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.

house property rental income of which was taxed under section 23 of the Act , but on borrowing made for repaying the original borrowing so utilized. The ld.DR drew our attention to the said facts as brought out at page no.3 of the assessment order as under: (i) The assessee company was incorporated on 4th November 2004 and its entire share

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

MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

23 of the Act, if a person\nhold more than one house property then only one house property can be\nclaimed as self-occupied at his/her option and for remaining properties the\nannual value of the house or houses, other than the self-occupied one shall\nbe determined under sub-section (1

SHRI BHAKTINAGAR CO.-OP. HO.SOC. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE PR.CIT-3, RAJKOT

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Bhaktinagar Co-Operative Vs. Pr.Cit-Iii Housing Society Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan Meghani Rang Bhavan Rajkot. Rajkot. Pan : Aaaas 2363 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Achary, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Rajkot [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Pr.Cit By Exercising His Power Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 18.2.2019 Pertaining To The Asst.Year2014-15. 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Read As Under:

1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Pr.C.I.T. u/s. 263 of the l.T. Act is ab initio void being bad in law. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Pr.C.I.T. erred in setting aside the assessment order dated 26th December, 2016 and directing

LATE SMT. PRITI A. GANDHI L/R. SHRI ANILBHAI A. GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

23 of the Act, if a person\nhold more than one house property then only one house property can be\nclaimed as self-occupied at his/her option and for remaining properties the\nannual value of the house or houses, other than the self-occupied one shall\nbe determined under sub-section (1

PRAMUKH ARANYA DEVELOPERS,JUNAGADH vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

property has to be considered as per provisions\nof sub-section (5) of section 23 of the Act, and assessing officer, during the\nassessment proceedings, examined these facts and taken the plausible view,\nwhich is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.\n4|Page\nM/s. Pramukh Aranya Developers v. PCIT\nITA No.372/Rjt/2024AY. 2018-19\n8. However

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

23,96,84,200/- on 08.09.2012. During the course of assessment proceeding it was found that the appellant has paid an amount of Rs. 2,80,05,500/- as contract cancellation charges to various foreign parties and the same was in the nature of payment being made for non-fulfillment of the contractual terms and conditions resulting in settlement

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

23,96,84,200/- on 08.09.2012. During the course of assessment proceeding it was found that the appellant has paid an amount of Rs. 2,80,05,500/- as contract cancellation charges to various foreign parties and the same was in the nature of payment being made for non-fulfillment of the contractual terms and conditions resulting in settlement

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

23,96,84,200/- on 08.09.2012. During the course of assessment proceeding it was found that the appellant has paid an amount of Rs. 2,80,05,500/- as contract cancellation charges to various foreign parties and the same was in the nature of payment being made for non-fulfillment of the contractual terms and conditions resulting in settlement

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)

23 to 25 “…..In our opinion, the decisions relating to Section 37 of the Act will also be applicable to Section 36(1)(iii) because in Section 37 also the expression used is "for the purpose of business". It has been consistently held in decisions relating to Section 37 that the expression "for the purpose of business" includes expenditure voluntarily

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)

23 to 25 “…..In our opinion, the decisions relating to Section 37 of the Act will also be applicable to Section 36(1)(iii) because in Section 37 also the expression used is "for the purpose of business". It has been consistently held in decisions relating to Section 37 that the expression "for the purpose of business" includes expenditure voluntarily

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)

23 to 25 “…..In our opinion, the decisions relating to Section 37 of the Act will also be applicable to Section 36(1)(iii) because in Section 37 also the expression used is "for the purpose of business". It has been consistently held in decisions relating to Section 37 that the expression "for the purpose of business" includes expenditure voluntarily

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)

23 to 25 “…..In our opinion, the decisions relating to Section 37 of the Act will also be applicable to Section 36(1)(iii) because in Section 37 also the expression used is "for the purpose of business". It has been consistently held in decisions relating to Section 37 that the expression "for the purpose of business" includes expenditure voluntarily