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

TDS certificate and that claimed as job work income. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. It is therefore prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. That

SHRI SHITALBHAI RASIKLAL RAVANI & SMT. BHAVNABEN SHITALBHAI RAVANI ,RAJKOT vs. THE CHIEF CIT, TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the applicants are dismissed

Bench: Us, The Same Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of A Common Order.

24-03-2017 relied upon by the applicants. Further, the CCIT (TDS) also rejected the alternate contention of the applicants for waiver of interest charged under section 220(2A) of the Act on the ground that the case of the applicants is not covered under section 220(2A) since interest on the applicants has been charged under section

SMT. BHAVNABEN SHITALBHAI RAVANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO(TDS-2), RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the applicants are dismissed

Bench: Us, The Same Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of A Common Order.

24-03-2017 relied upon by the applicants. Further, the CCIT (TDS) also rejected the alternate contention of the applicants for waiver of interest charged under section 220(2A) of the Act on the ground that the case of the applicants is not covered under section 220(2A) since interest on the applicants has been charged under section

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

24. We have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submission of the Learned Counsel for the assessee and ld DR for the Revenue and evidences on ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 record. We find merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the assessee

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

24. We have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submission of the Learned Counsel for the assessee and ld DR for the Revenue and evidences on ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 record. We find merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the assessee

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

24. We have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submission of the Learned Counsel for the assessee and ld DR for the Revenue and evidences on ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 record. We find merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the assessee

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

24. We have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submission of the Learned Counsel for the assessee and ld DR for the Revenue and evidences on ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 record. We find merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the assessee

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

24. We have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submission of the Learned Counsel for the assessee and ld DR for the Revenue and evidences on ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 record. We find merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the assessee

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

vi) Jamna Auto industries Vs. CIT, (2008) 167 TAXMAN 192 (P&H HC) Finally, he contended that the TPO had categorically held that no adverse inference was to be drawn with regard to other international transactions entered into by the assessee which included the present intra-group services arranged including payment for management fees, SAP and Opti-mill expenses

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

vi) Jamna Auto industries Vs. CIT, (2008) 167 TAXMAN 192 (P&H HC) Finally, he contended that the TPO had categorically held that no adverse inference was to be drawn with regard to other international transactions entered into by the assessee which included the present intra-group services arranged including payment for management fees, SAP and Opti-mill expenses

AHLSTROM FIBERCOMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

vi) Jamna Auto industries Vs. CIT, (2008) 167 TAXMAN 192 (P&H HC) Finally, he contended that the TPO had categorically held that no adverse inference was to be drawn with regard to other international transactions entered into by the assessee which included the present intra-group services arranged including payment for management fees, SAP and Opti-mill expenses

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the LT. Act, 1961. (3). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of interest on delayed payment of TDS amounting to Rs. 57,298/-. (4). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition amounting to Rs. 25,35,850/- on account of difference in receipts as per books

SHRI NIRMAL RAJENDRA JAGETIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO (TDS-3), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

vi) (vii) Nature of goods Alcoholic Liquor, for human consumption Tendu leaves Timber obtained under a forest lease Timber obtained by any mode other than under a forest lease Any other forest produce not being timber or tendu leaves Scrap Minerals, being coal or lignite or iron ore Percentage One percent Five percent Two & half percent Two & half percent

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

2 cents per Tea 4,19,226 Business Inc kg 3. Rajesh UAE UAE 11 cents per Tea 72,967 kg Verma 4. Delmon Star UAE IRAN 6% of Tea Tea 4,20,815 General invoice Trading value Total 2.21.28.335 128- ITA Nos. 284, 353, 225 & 226/RJT/2024 Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was noticed by the assessing

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

2 cents per Tea 4,19,226 Business Inc kg 3. Rajesh UAE UAE 11 cents per Tea 72,967 kg Verma 4. Delmon Star UAE IRAN 6% of Tea Tea 4,20,815 General invoice Trading value Total 2.21.28.335 128- ITA Nos. 284, 353, 225 & 226/RJT/2024 Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was noticed by the assessing

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

2 cents per Tea 4,19,226 Business Inc kg 3. Rajesh UAE UAE 11 cents per Tea 72,967 kg Verma 4. Delmon Star UAE IRAN 6% of Tea Tea 4,20,815 General invoice Trading value Total 2.21.28.335 128- ITA Nos. 284, 353, 225 & 226/RJT/2024 Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was noticed by the assessing

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

2 cents per Tea 4,19,226 Business Inc kg 3. Rajesh UAE UAE 11 cents per Tea 72,967 kg Verma 4. Delmon Star UAE IRAN 6% of Tea Tea 4,20,815 General invoice Trading value Total 2.21.28.335 128- ITA Nos. 284, 353, 225 & 226/RJT/2024 Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was noticed by the assessing

THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S KRISHNA DEVELOPERS,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the ground raised by the assessee in the CO is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.620/Rjt/2014 With C.O.No.4/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 A.C.I.T., M/S.Krishna Developers, Circle-1, Business Centre, Vs. Junagadh. 1St Floor, Bus Station Road, Lal Bahadur Society, Junagadh.

TDS details were submitted. 3) The provisions of section 145(3) of the Act are applicable where the AO is not satisfied with the correctness or completeness of the accounts, and the assessee has not been following the method specified in sub-section (1) of accounting standard as notified under sub-section (2) regularly. In relation to non maintenance