BATAVA DEVLI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,BATAVA DEVLI, TAL. KUNLAVA, DIST. AMRELI. vs. THE ADIT, (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 143(1) was not considered upon by the ITAT Special Bench. 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68

AMBARADI SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,AMBARADI , DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT(CPC), BANGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section

DHARESHWAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. ,VILLAGE: - DHARESHWAR, TALUKA: - RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section

AMRUTPUR SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,VILLAGE: - AMRUTPUR TALUKA DHARI, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section

SHREE SANALIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,LITAL MOTALILIYA SANALIYA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section

SHRI JAWAHIR RAVICHANDRA MEHTA,DUBAI(UAE) vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result appeal of the assessee vide ITA/81/Rjt/2020 stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Memebr

1)(g), the factors considered relevant include the context in which retroactivity was contemplated such as whether the law is one of validation of taxing statute struck-down by courts for certain defects; the period of such retroactivity, and the decree and extent of any unforeseen or unforeseeable financial burden imposed for the past period etc." 18. In Govinddas

CHAKARGADH SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,CHAKARGADH SEVA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT(CPC),, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 143(1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68

SHRI TRAMBAKPUR SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,AT TRAMBAKPUR TALUKA DHARI DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT/ACIT (CPC),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act. 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68

SHRI NAVA UJALA SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,AT NAVA UJALA, TALUKA KUNKAVAV, GUIJARAT-365450 vs. THE DCIT/ACIT(CPC),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act. 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68

DHAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,DHAR, TALUKA: - SAVARKUNDLA, DIST. AMRELI-GUJARAT. vs. THE DCIT(CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act. 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68

SHREE ANTALIYA KHETI VIKAS KARYAKARI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,LILIYA MOTA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 7.3 Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68

DAHIDA SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED ,VILLAGE: - DAHIDA, DIST.:- AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 7.3 Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68

ALIUDEPUR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,ALIUDEPUR VILLAGE, TALUKA LATHI, DIST.: - AMRELI-365430 vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 7.3 Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68

MEDI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,MEDI, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act. 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68

SHREE LUNIDHAR SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,LUNIDHAR, TALUKA KUNKAVAV, DIST. AMRELI. vs. ASSESSING OFFICER (CPC), , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 143(1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68

HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 68, the assessee has to further satisfy the Revenue as to the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the share Page 12 of 37 I.T.A No. 363/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. applicant or the individual who is advancing amounts. The ld. PCIT further relied on the following decisions: (1

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

1. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,08,47,623/- being the disallowance on account of advances written off. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.7,68,148/- being the disallowance on account of delay in payments made to employer

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

1. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,08,47,623/- being the disallowance on account of advances written off. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.7,68,148/- being the disallowance on account of delay in payments made to employer

SHRI NAVAVAGHNIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,AMRELI vs. THE DCIT/ACIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANAGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 7.3 Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68