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

10 lakhs under Section 68 of the Act, being unexplained cash credits. 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

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

10 lakhs under Section 68 of the Act, being unexplained cash credits. 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

ATUL AUTO LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

10. Accordingly following the above decision, we hold that the claim of deduction under section 80-IB can be made by the assessee before the appellate authorities. Since grounds relating to the deduction under section 80-IB were made before the appellate authorities, irrespective of whether it was claimed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S ATUL AUTO LIMITED,, SHAPAR.VERAVAL

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

10. Accordingly following the above decision, we hold that the claim of deduction under section 80-IB can be made by the assessee before the appellate authorities. Since grounds relating to the deduction under section 80-IB were made before the appellate authorities, irrespective of whether it was claimed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

10(1) of the Singapore Income Tax Act, without any comments on actual taxability of the impugned income in Singapore, The appellant has relied upon the letter issued by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore dated 8 November 2017 in the assessment order passed under section 172(4) of the IT Act where in it has been confirmed

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

10(1) of the Singapore Income Tax Act, without any comments on actual taxability of the impugned income in Singapore, The appellant has relied upon the letter issued by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore dated 8 November 2017 in the assessment order passed under section 172(4) of the IT Act where in it has been confirmed

SHRI KAMLESH DEORAJ JAIN,GANDHIDHAM KUTCHH vs. THE ITO WARD 1 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 62/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kamlesh Deoraj Jain Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Plot No 35-36, Devashish Gandhidham, Income Tax Vs. Sector-5 Gandhidham 370201 Office, Plot No.32, Sector No.3, Near Iffco Colony, Gandhidham-370 201 "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adopj1769Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

5,44,21,025/- was treated as un-explained credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s 115BBE and was added by the assessing officer to the income of assessee. Kamlesh Deoraj Jain 6. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A), who has confirmed

SMT. CHANDRIKABEN NARANBHAI BHORANIA,MORBI vs. ITO, WARD-1 , MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

10. The provisions of section 68 can be invoked with respect to the sum found credited in the books of accounts and the assessee offers no explanation about I.T.A No. 204/Rjt/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 4 Chandrikaben Naranbhai Bhorania Vs. ITO the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory. Thus

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

68,148/- being the disallowance on account of delay in payments made to employer as well as employee's contribution to provident fund. 3. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the addition of Rs.7,23,110/- being the disallowance on account of investigation expenses paid by the bank. 4. The Ld.CIT

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

68,148/- being the disallowance on account of delay in payments made to employer as well as employee's contribution to provident fund. 3. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the addition of Rs.7,23,110/- being the disallowance on account of investigation expenses paid by the bank. 4. The Ld.CIT

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S REAL PROCON PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.498/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S Real Procon Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Saneshwar Complex, Rajkot. Opp. Balalji Hall, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot.

section 68 of the Act. 3. The necessary facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a private limited company and engaged in the business of construction of residential cum commercial complex. The assessee in the year under consideration has issued shares to the promoter directors as well as to the outsiders. The shares were

THE DCIT, MORBI CIRCLE, , MORBI vs. M/S. CLAYRIS CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,, MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 287/Rjt/2018 With Co No. 28/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 D.C.I.T, M/S. Clayris Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., Morbi Circle, Vs. Opp. Soriso Ceramics, Morbi. B.H Fame Ceramics Pvt., 8A-Nh, Morbi.

section 68 of the Act for Rs. 5,30,63,780/- on account of credit of share capital and share premium. ITA no.287/Rjt/2018 with C.O No.28/Rjt/2018 Asstt. Year 2013-14 8 10

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

5. Thus, the issue is no longer debatable as the matter has been decided against the assessee by Hon'ble Courts. As per the amended provision of section 80AC, benefit of deduction was not available to an assessee w.e.f. 01.04.2018 if the return of income was filed beyond the due date as provided in 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

5. Thus, the issue is no longer debatable as the matter has been decided against the assessee by Hon'ble Courts. As per the amended provision of section 80AC, benefit of deduction was not available to an assessee w.e.f. 01.04.2018 if the return of income was filed beyond the due date as provided in Section

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

5. Thus, the issue is no longer debatable as the matter has been decided against the assessee by Hon'ble Courts. As per the amended provision of section 80AC, benefit of deduction was not available to an assessee w.e.f. 01.04.2018 if the return of income was filed beyond the due date as provided in 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

5. Thus, the issue is no longer debatable as the matter has been decided against the assessee by Hon'ble Courts. As per the amended provision of section 80AC, benefit of deduction was not available to an assessee w.e.f. 01.04.2018 if the return of income was filed beyond the due date as provided in Section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

5,10,28,350 0.31% 2004-05 17,92,73,560 9,15,66,115 38,77,759 2.16% 2005-06 90,84,157 27,91,555 61 ,469 0.68% Total 23,93,86,067 10,99,87,129 40,98,852 1.05% 13. At this stage, we would like to make a reference to section 68

SAMEER SHAH (HUF),1 "SWAPNEEL" ,OPP. GURUDATATREY TEMPLE PALACE ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.248/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sameer Shah (Huf), Vs. The Ito Ward 1(3), 1 “Swapneel”, Opp. Jamnagar - 361001 Gurudatatrey Temple, Palace Road, Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawhs3749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

10,474/- under section 68 of the Act, total income was assessed at Rs. 5,21,964/-. 3.2 In appeal