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

5. The arguments put forth by the assessee company have been carefully considered and a claim of the assessee has been thoroughly examined in the light of provisions of section 80IA(4) read with explanation inserted after sub section (13) of section 80IA of the Act. On perusal of the reply submitted by the assessee it is seen that

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

5. The arguments put forth by the assessee company have been carefully considered and a claim of the assessee has been thoroughly examined in the light of provisions of section 80IA(4) read with explanation inserted after sub section (13) of section 80IA of the Act. On perusal of the reply submitted by the assessee it is seen that

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

5. The arguments put forth by the assessee company have been carefully considered and a claim of the assessee has been thoroughly examined in the light of provisions of section 80IA(4) read with explanation inserted after sub section (13) of section 80IA of the Act. On perusal of the reply submitted by the assessee it is seen that

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

5. The arguments put forth by the assessee company have been carefully considered and a claim of the assessee has been thoroughly examined in the light of provisions of section 80IA(4) read with explanation inserted after sub section (13) of section 80IA of the Act. On perusal of the reply submitted by the assessee it is seen that

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

4. Looking to the above facts, this office has verified the facts with the ITR filed and it is found that you have claimed LTCG of Rs.8,90,894/- under Schedule El under the head of details of exempt income. Assessment u/s.147 of the Act was made and the assessment was finalized accepting returned income. As the scrip name "Karma

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

4. Looking to the above facts, this office has verified the facts with the ITR filed and it is found that you have claimed LTCG of Rs.8,90,894/- under Schedule El under the head of details of exempt income. Assessment u/s.147 of the Act was made and the assessment was finalized accepting returned income. As the scrip name "Karma

BHANUBEN MANSUKHLAL KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

4. Looking to the above facts, this office has verified the facts with the ITR filed and it is found that you have claimed LTCG of Rs.8,90,894/- under Schedule El under the head of details of exempt income. Assessment u/s.147 of the Act was made and the assessment was finalized accepting returned income. As the scrip name "Karma

JAYESH KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

4. Looking to the above facts, this office has verified the facts with the ITR filed and it is found that you have claimed LTCG of Rs.8,90,894/- under Schedule El under the head of details of exempt income. Assessment u/s.147 of the Act was made and the assessment was finalized accepting returned income. As the scrip name "Karma

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

5. disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80 IA(4) of the Act. 6. In appeal, the assessee challenged the validity of assessment framed under section 153A of the Act on the ground that at the time of search no incriminating documents were found so as to hold that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section

M/S BACKBONE PROJECTS LIMITED.,,AHMEDABAD 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

5. disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80 IA(4) of the Act. 6. In appeal, the assessee challenged the validity of assessment framed under section 153A of the Act on the ground that at the time of search no incriminating documents were found so as to hold that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

5. disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80 IA(4) of the Act. 6. In appeal, the assessee challenged the validity of assessment framed under section 153A of the Act on the ground that at the time of search no incriminating documents were found so as to hold that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section

M/S BACKBONE PROJECTS LIMITED.,,AHMEDABAD 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

5. disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80 IA(4) of the Act. 6. In appeal, the assessee challenged the validity of assessment framed under section 153A of the Act on the ground that at the time of search no incriminating documents were found so as to hold that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section

SMT. PRATIMABEN V. RAJA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., RAJKOT

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the assessee is a non- resident as defined under Section 2(30) of the Act and the “non-resident” status of the assessee has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee submitted that the entire funds had come from his son’s overseas accounts and both the assessee

SHRI VINODKUMAR HIRALAL RAJA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., RAJKOT

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the assessee is a non- resident as defined under Section 2(30) of the Act and the “non-resident” status of the assessee has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee submitted that the entire funds had come from his son’s overseas accounts and both the assessee

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

5% of the total turnover. Thus, under the provisions of section 44 AF the Act there is no possibility of claiming the loss. Furthermore, the turnover of the assessee exceeds 940 Lacs being the threshold limit and therefore the provisions of section 44 AF cannot be applied. Based on the above, the AO did not allow

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

5% of the total turnover. Thus, under the provisions of section 44 AF the Act there is no possibility of claiming the loss. Furthermore, the turnover of the assessee exceeds 940 Lacs being the threshold limit and therefore the provisions of section 44 AF cannot be applied. Based on the above, the AO did not allow

SHRI MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN ,GANDHIDHAM vs. THEACIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

5% of the total turnover. Thus, under the provisions of section 44 AF the Act there is no possibility of claiming the loss. Furthermore, the turnover of the assessee exceeds 940 Lacs being the threshold limit and therefore the provisions of section 44 AF cannot be applied. Based on the above, the AO did not allow

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

5% of the total turnover. Thus, under the provisions of section 44 AF the Act there is no possibility of claiming the loss. Furthermore, the turnover of the assessee exceeds 940 Lacs being the threshold limit and therefore the provisions of section 44 AF cannot be applied. Based on the above, the AO did not allow

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

4. It is stated that section 151A of the Act has contemplated formulation of Scheme for both assessment, reassessment and re-computation under section 147 as well as for issuance of notice under section 148 and 148A of the Act and also for passing the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act. 5