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.

D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This bunch of appeals contains eight appeals by the Revenue, five cross-objections by two assessees viz. Smt. Manishaben N. Mashru and Shri Nailesh M. Mashru and one appeal filed by the assessee viz. Smt.Manishaben N. Mashru. All these appeals are directed against separate orders of the ld.CIT(A)-I. Assessment years

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned three appeals have been filed at the instance of the assessee against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7 ITA Nos.310,311/Rjt/2015 & 248/Rjt/2013 A.Y. 2005-06, 2010-11 & 2009-10 2 (in short the “Ld. CIT(A)”), Ahmedabad arising in the matter

PARSHWA PRINTPACK PVT. LTD.,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned three appeals have been filed at the instance of the assessee against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7 ITA Nos.310,311/Rjt/2015 & 248/Rjt/2013 A.Y. 2005-06, 2010-11 & 2009-10 2 (in short the “Ld. CIT(A)”), Ahmedabad arising in the matter

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned three appeals have been filed at the instance of the assessee against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7 ITA Nos.310,311/Rjt/2015 & 248/Rjt/2013 A.Y. 2005-06, 2010-11 & 2009-10 2 (in short the “Ld. CIT(A)”), Ahmedabad arising in the matter

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.

1 to 311 and submitted that the assessee has furnished the details of the identity, creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions. As such the primary onus imposed upon the assessee was duly discharged. Had there been any doubt to the AO, then the same should have been verified by him under the provisions of section 131

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S TIRTH AGRO TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.,, GONDAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

D E R PER BENCH: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Rajkot (CIT(A) in short) dated 26/06/2015 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. ITA No. 414/Rjt/15 [DCIT vs. M/s. Tirth Agro Technology Pvt. Ltd.] A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 - 2. The Revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 , RAJKOT vs. ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING(INDIA) PVT.LTD. (SWISS SINGAPORE INDIA PVT. LTD.), GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

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

section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India, commission paid to them was not liable to tax in India Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee)." 25. In view of the above factual

ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJARAT vs. DCIT-ACIT CENT-2 RKT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

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

section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India, commission paid to them was not liable to tax in India Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee)." 25. In view of the above factual

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT vs. ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SWISS SINGAPORE INDIA PVT. LTD., GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

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

section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India, commission paid to them was not liable to tax in India Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee)." 25. In view of the above factual

ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, GANDHIHDAM, GANDHIDHAM, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

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

section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India, commission paid to them was not liable to tax in India Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee)." 25. In view of the above factual

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

d. Dr Prakash Tiwari vs CIT (1983) 14 taxman 252 (MP) e. Rajmeet Singh vs ITO, (2024) 160 taxmann.com 83 (Jharkhand) 3. That in addition to the deeming provisions, the Act requires taxation of profits from activities undertaken by the assessee, i.e. commission income. 4. That the activities of the assessee have been incorrectly considered as ‘business

LUNAR CERAMICS,WANKANER vs. PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

d) was issued to the assessee. The assessee filed\nreply to the notice on 28.03.2022 amounting into Rs. 18,21,190/-. The assessee\nhas submitted Audit Report, Bank statement, Bank Pass-book for AY 2018-19\nbefore the assessing officer alongwith the other documentary evidences. assessee\ndenied undertaking transaction with the said party and submitted its Audit Report,\nbank book

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

D.\nPatel and Ashok Parmar, as applying the correct provisions of Law.\nb) Powers of ITAT to decide taxable income afresh.\nThe Ld. ITAT is the highest fact-finding authority as per provisions of Income Tax Act,1961 that it has\nbeen held that proceeding of Ld. ITAT are also not meant to score a point but are meant

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. PARAS BUILDCON P. LTD., JAMNAGAR

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

D E R PER WASEEM AHMED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: ITA nos.315-317/Rjt/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 2 The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the different Assessee against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamnagar, (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”) arising in the matter of assessment order passed under

SMT. KRUSHNABA PRAVINSINH JADEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

131 of the Act, and\nthey have replied to the Assessing Officer, with documentary evidences,\ntherefore, no adverse conclusion can be drawn in respect of other 14\npersons, as the Assessing Officer never summoned to these 14 persons and\nnever asked any details and documents and information from them. The\nAssessing Officer has not summoned, during the proceedings under section

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. KRUSHNABA P. JADEJA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

D E R Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, AM: Captioned cross appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue, pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13, are directed against the common order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-1 Rajkot, which in turn arise, out of a common assessment order, passed by the Assessing Officer, under section

BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT

D.\nPatel and Ashok Parmar, as applying the correct provisions of Law.\n18\n1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA\n2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI\nb) Powers of ITAT to decide taxable income afresh.\nThe Ld. ITAT is the highest fact-finding authority as per provisions of Income Tax Act,1961 that it has\nbeen held that proceeding of Ld. ITAT are also

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

D.\nPatel and Ashok Parmar, as applying the correct provisions of Law.\n18\nBHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA\nDHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI\nb) Powers of ITAT to decide taxable income afresh.\nThe Ld. ITAT is the highest fact-finding authority as per provisions of Income Tax Act,1961 that it has\nbeen held that proceeding of Ld. ITAT are also not meant