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

2) of Section 150 as it stands, in our view, a fair and just interpretation would be that the Authority under the Act has been empowered only to reopen assessments, which have not already been closed and attained finality due to the operation of the bar of limitation under Section 149. 19. This Court took similar view

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)

5. However, the Pr. CIT rejected the above reply of the assessee and observed that the contention of the assessee that as the case was selected for limited scrutiny, examination of the creditworthiness etc. of the persons who have invested in share capital in terms of section 68 was outside the purview of the assessment proceedings. The contention

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

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

5). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 30,50,000/-\non account of unexplained cash deposits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n(6). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed application of provisions of\nsection 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n(7). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed

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

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

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 the entire funds had come from

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

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 the entire funds had come from

THE MORBI CITIZENS CREDIT CO-OPRATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MORVI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.285/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) The Morbi Citizens Credit Co- Vs. The Assessment Unit, Operative Society Ltd., Income Tax Department Above Murlidhar Sales National Faceless Agency, Savsar Plot, Ram Assessment Center Chowk, Morbid - 363641 (Nfac), Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabat2850K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 263 of the Act, does not apply to the assessee. Therefore, considering these facts, the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view which is sustainable in the eye of law, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industries (supra).Since the order of the Assessing Officer cannot

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

2,00,00,000/-\n3. Before Supreme Court\nRs. 5,00,00,000/-\nWe find that in the present case, the tax effect by the revenue is less than\nRs.60,00,000/-, therefore, we dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue.\n18. Since we have dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, therefore, cross objection\nfiled by the assessee becomes academic

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

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

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

2 MT Maersk Tangier 1 1,24,05,600 account of the bnenefidary I.e. "MAERSK TANKEHS MT Maersk Misakl SINGAPORE PTE LTD." at 3 1 3,35,27,716 account maintained 4 MT Maersk Piper 1 4,68,78,299 with the The Hongkong and 5 MT Maersk Teesport 1 1,21,68,000 Shanghai Banking 6 MT Maersk Princess

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

2 MT Maersk Tangier 1 1,24,05,600 account of the bnenefidary I.e. "MAERSK TANKEHS MT Maersk Misakl SINGAPORE PTE LTD." at 3 1 3,35,27,716 account maintained 4 MT Maersk Piper 1 4,68,78,299 with the The Hongkong and 5 MT Maersk Teesport 1 1,21,68,000 Shanghai Banking 6 MT Maersk Princess

JAMNAGAR AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JAMNAGAR vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013

5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in wrongly applying first proviso to Section 2(15) to the appellant's case. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in contending that the appellant authority is not eligible to claim exemption

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset informed that he is not pressing the ground in ITA No. 214/Rjt/2016. The sole ground raised by the assessee is disallowance of unpaid leave salary of Rs. 26,62,000/- and thereby permitted

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset informed that he is not pressing the ground in ITA No. 214/Rjt/2016. The sole ground raised by the assessee is disallowance of unpaid leave salary of Rs. 26,62,000/- and thereby permitted

SHRI GIRISHBHAI NANJIBHAI SOLANKI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2), RAJKOT

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

5 On the other hand, the learned DR before us filed a written note dated 9th 7. February 2023 running into 4 pages and contended that there was a diary belonging to the assessee which was found from the premises of the company namely M/s Bhavani Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd in which the assessee is a director. Such diary