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. 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

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

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

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 as per provisions of section 24(b) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act), d) Again reiterate the fact that, as discussed earlier in show cause and our contention, we submit that, there was introduction of capital in the form of OFCD to pay the OUTSTANDING LIABILITY OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF MALL BUILDING. To justify our claim

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

section (1), as if such house or houses had been\nlet out. However, the assessing officer has not gone into this aspect of the\nresidential units reported in the balance sheet of the assessee, which\nrendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of\nrevenue.\n(4). Issue No.4, the ld PCIT noticed that the unsecured loans reported

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

section (1), as if such house or houses had been\nlet out. However, the assessing officer has not gone into this aspect of the\nresidential units reported in the balance sheet of the assessee, which\nrendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of\nrevenue.\n(4). Issue No.4, the ld PCIT noticed that the unsecured loans reported

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

section 271(1) (C), of the Act, to the tune of\nRs.35,55,728/-\n14. Issue No.2- Deemed rent of more than one properties reflected in the\nBalance Sheet, Rs.1,80,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, on\nverification of the audited accounts filed by the assessee, along with return of\nincome, it was noticed by the assessing officer

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

section 271(1) (C), of the Act, to the tune of\nRs.35,55,728/-\n14.\nIssue No.2- Deemed rent of more than one properties reflected in the\nBalance Sheet, Rs.1,80,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, on\nverification of the audited accounts filed by the assessee, along with return of\nincome, it was noticed by the assessing officer

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

section 271(1) (C), of the Act, to the tune of\nRs.35,55,728/-\n14. Issue No.2- Deemed rent of more than one properties reflected in the\nBalance Sheet, Rs.1,80,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, on\nverification of the audited accounts filed by the assessee, along with return of\nincome, it was noticed by the assessing officer

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

section 271(1) (C), of the Act, to the tune of\nRs.35,55,728/-.\n14. Issue No.2- Deemed rent of more than one properties reflected in the\nBalance Sheet, Rs.1,80,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, on\nverification of the audited accounts filed by the assessee, along with return of\nincome, it was noticed by the assessing officer

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

section 271(1) (C), of the Act, to the tune of\nRs.35,55,728/-\n14. Issue No.2- Deemed rent of more than one properties reflected in the\nBalance Sheet, Rs.1,80,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, on\nverification of the audited accounts filed by the assessee, along with return of\nincome, it was noticed by the assessing officer

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

section 271(1) (C), of the Act, to the tune of\nRs.35,55,728/-\n\n14. Issue No.2- Deemed rent of more than one properties reflected in the\nBalance Sheet, Rs.1,80,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, on\nverification of the audited accounts filed by the assessee, along with return of\nincome, it was noticed by the assessing

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

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

80-1A\nHon CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts in\n(i). confirming addition made by assessing officer by considering Rent Income of Rs.\n30,84,582/-as Income from 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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, , GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH vs. M/S. RIDDHI SIDDHI JEWELLERS, GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue isdismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-2 Vs. M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers Gandhidham. Shop No.1, Plot No.68 Bba (Sough) Gandhidham-Kutch. 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2023

80,12,332/-. The main reasons for this lower figure of net profit were following debit entries--- 7 1. Remuneration to partners Rs. 1,21,47,977/- 2. Interest to partners Rs. 9,85,160/- The Book Profit was therefore Rs. 20162589/-, the AO has also noted the same in his assessment order in his computation on page

JITENDRASINH ZALA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha

house property during the year under consideration. Hence, only assessee claimed interest on self-occupied property and not shown any deemed rent income. 7. Regarding room rent expenses of Rs. 23,74,186/-, site expenses of Rs. 28,93,270/-, and salary overtime expenses, the assessee submitted as follows before the learned PCIT: (a)Regarding Room Rent Expenses: the assessee