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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

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

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(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.

50,000 JPIPL (SC) 03.02.2009 10,00,000 JPIPL (SC) 03.03.2009 8,00,000 JPIPL (SC) 05.03.2009 4,00,000 JPIPL (SC.) 27.04.2009 6,00,000 IL & FSr M Fund- 1 14.10.2008 1,00,00,000 JPIPL (SC) 14.10.2008 1,00,00,000 24.06.2008 IL & FS- M Fund- 1 5,00,00,000 JPIPL

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

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

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

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

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

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

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

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

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

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

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

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

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

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

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

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

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

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

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

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

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

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)

50. Brief facts, qua the issue are that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed the discrepancy pointed out by the special auditor and observed that assessee has claimed handling/spillage/wastage loss from salt trading. During the year, the firm has claimed handling/spillage/wastage loss of 18,092 M.T. During the course of audit, the firm was asked to provide explanation

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)

50. Brief facts, qua the issue are that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed the discrepancy pointed out by the special auditor and observed that assessee has claimed handling/spillage/wastage loss from salt trading. During the year, the firm has claimed handling/spillage/wastage loss of 18,092 M.T. During the course of audit, the firm was asked to provide explanation

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)

50. Brief facts, qua the issue are that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed the discrepancy pointed out by the special auditor and observed that assessee has claimed handling/spillage/wastage loss from salt trading. During the year, the firm has claimed handling/spillage/wastage loss of 18,092 M.T. During the course of audit, the firm was asked to provide explanation

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)

50. Brief facts, qua the issue are that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed the discrepancy pointed out by the special auditor and observed that assessee has claimed handling/spillage/wastage loss from salt trading. During the year, the firm has claimed handling/spillage/wastage loss of 18,092 M.T. During the course of audit, the firm was asked to provide explanation