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)

ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, are satisfied. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 01/04/2021 was set aside by ld. PCIT for fresh assessment only to the extent of the issues discussed (supra) and ld. PCIT directed

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)

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

GODHAVADAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,GODHAVADAR, LILIYA MOTA, AMRELI-365535 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)

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

143(3) read\nwith Section 144B of the Act. Accordingly, we accept the contention of the Assessee\nthat in the facts and circumstances of the present case the doctrine of merger would\napply. Therefore, we reject the contention of the Revenue that the CIT(A) erred in\nentertaining and adjudicating the grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal before

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), , RAJKOT vs. SYMBOSA GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED, WANKANER

143(3) of the Act on 12-12-2018 accepting total\nloss of Rs. 5,66,01,919/- as per return of income. On perusal of record, it is seen that\nduring the previous year 2015-16 relevant to A.Y 2016-17, fresh unsecured loan of\nRs. 57,61,000/- from 4 persons have been raised and Rs.86

M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ii). Complete Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny System)\n(iii). Compulsory Manual Scrutiny\nFrom the above it is clear that as per CBDT circular mentioned above, the\nnotice u/s 143(2) of the Act, has to be issued in given format and not any\nother format. Therefore, as per format of the notice as per the above circular,\nthe notice should

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nerroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue), we understood\nfollowings (point no.2 to 7of the notice).\nSr.\n1.\nParticulars\nAs per provision of section 270A (10) (b) of the I.T. Act, 1961\nwhen income assessed / reassessed or recomputed as loss than\nthe amount

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

68,000 Shanghai Banking 6 MT Maersk Princess 3 26,96,32,792^ Corporation Limitd, 21 Collyer Quay ft 02-00 HSBC Building, Singapore 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 MT Maersk Progress 1 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 13 ISS Shipping India

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

68,000 Shanghai Banking 6 MT Maersk Princess 3 26,96,32,792^ Corporation Limitd, 21 Collyer Quay ft 02-00 HSBC Building, Singapore 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 MT Maersk Progress 1 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 13 ISS Shipping India

M/S. SARJU VITRIFIED PVT. LTD.,MORBI-363641 vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 68 as applicable to the year under appeal, the\nassessee was not required to prove the source of the source in respect of unsecured\nloans.\n4.The learned Pr. CIT has erred in law as well as on facts in setting aside the\nassessment order passed by the ld. A.O. u/s. 143(3) and directing de-novo assessment\nregarding

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

3. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the prlma-facie adjustments applying the provisions of section 80AC(ii). As per the provision of section 80AC(ii), no deduction under any provision of Chapter VIA under the heading "C-deduction in respect of certain Incomes" will be allowed w.e.f 01.04,2018 unless an assessee files the return of his income

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

3. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the prlma-facie adjustments applying the provisions of section 80AC(ii). As per the provision of section 80AC(ii), no deduction under any provision of Chapter VIA under the heading "C-deduction in respect of certain Incomes" will be allowed w.e.f 01.04,2018 unless an assessee files the return of his income

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

3. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the prlma-facie adjustments applying the provisions of section 80AC(ii). As per the provision of section 80AC(ii), no deduction under any provision of Chapter VIA under the heading "C-deduction in respect of certain Incomes" will be allowed w.e.f 01.04,2018 unless an assessee files the return of his income

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

3. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the prlma-facie adjustments applying the provisions of section 80AC(ii). As per the provision of section 80AC(ii), no deduction under any provision of Chapter VIA under the heading "C-deduction in respect of certain Incomes" will be allowed w.e.f 01.04,2018 unless an assessee files the return of his income

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

143(3) of\nthe Act, dated 26/12/2017, for revision u/s 263 of the Income tax Act.In\nresponse to the said notice, the assessee made written submissions on\n13/03/2019. The gist of the assessee`s submission is as under:\n“1. With respect to the claim of exempt Capital Gain, the assessee has contended that\nit is not necessary that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( here in after referred to\nas \"the Act\").\n2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows:\n“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting\nthe addition of Rs. 1,11,00,047/- being unexplained cash credit

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ii) of the Act does not deal with disallowance of deduction for deed filing of return of income and also the said adjustment is not permissible under 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 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala

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)

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co-operative society, who filed return of income on 30-11-2020 declaring total income of " " Nil and claimed deduction of 5,13,568/-under section 80P of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee received intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act dated