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)

bogus nature of the transactions or receipt back of cash from M/s Terapanth Foods Pvt. Ltd. The purchases by the group concerns and sale by the assessee are duly vouched, paid for by account payee cheques, supported by audited books of accounts. It was further submitted that F.Y. 2008-09 is the first year of trading activity of export

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)

bogus nature of the transactions or receipt back of cash from M/s Terapanth Foods Pvt. Ltd. The purchases by the group concerns and sale by the assessee are duly vouched, paid for by account payee cheques, supported by audited books of accounts. It was further submitted that F.Y. 2008-09 is the first year of trading activity of export

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)

bogus nature of the transactions or receipt back of cash from M/s Terapanth Foods Pvt. Ltd. The purchases by the group concerns and sale by the assessee are duly vouched, paid for by account payee cheques, supported by audited books of accounts. It was further submitted that F.Y. 2008-09 is the first year of trading activity of export

NISHANT PAREKH- LEGAL HEIR OF MINA PAREKH,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.215/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-2016) Nishant Parekh – Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer Mina Parekh Aaykar Bhavan 322 Madhav Square, Opp 361001, Gujrat Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Road, Gujrat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (Appellant) (Respondent)

56(2)(viia) of the Act. The assessee received the bogus long term capital gain (LTCG) and that is why, section 10(38) of the Act, by way of insertion of third proviso whereby the transactions in long term capital gain (LTCG) would be exempted only in those cases where the transactions were subjected to Securities Transaction Tax (STT), however

DEEPMALA MARINE EXPORTS,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

56,017/- as unexplained within the meaning of section 69 of the IT Act and not charged tax u/s section 115BBE of the I.T. Act Further, it is seen that during the year under consideration, the assessee firm has total turnover of Rs.77,42,35,548/- and had earned a gross profit

SHAMJI NATHU VAISHYA,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

56,017/- as unexplained within the meaning of section 69 of the IT Act and not charged tax u/s section 115BBE of the I.T. Act Further, it is seen that during the year under consideration, the assessee firm has total turnover of Rs.77,42,35,548/- and had earned a gross profit

SOHAM PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

56,017/- as unexplained within the meaning of section 69 of the IT Act and not charged tax u/s section 115BBE of the I.T. Act Further, it is seen that during the year under consideration, the assessee firm has total turnover of Rs.77,42,35,548/- and had earned a gross profit

CHUNILAL GOVIND VANIK,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

56,017/- as unexplained within the meaning of section 69 of the IT Act and not charged tax u/s section 115BBE of the I.T. Act Further, it is seen that during the year under consideration, the assessee firm has total turnover of Rs.77,42,35,548/- and had earned a gross profit

KISHOR VELJIBHAI FOFANDI,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

56,017/- as unexplained within the meaning of section 69 of the IT Act and not charged tax u/s section 115BBE of the I.T. Act Further, it is seen that during the year under consideration, the assessee firm has total turnover of Rs.77,42,35,548/- and had earned a gross profit

BHARATKUMAR KALYANJIBHAI BHINDI,JUNAGADH vs. PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

56,017/- as unexplained within the meaning of section 69 of the IT Act and\nnot charged tax u/s section 115BBE of the I.T. Act\nFurther, it is seen that during the year under consideration, the assessee firm has\ntotal turnover of Rs.77,42,35,548/- and had earned a gross profit

HETALKUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU,RAJKOT vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

56,017/- as unexplained within the meaning of section 69 of the IT Act and\nnot charged tax u/s section 115BBE of the I.T. Act\nFurther, it is seen that during the year under consideration, the assessee firm has\ntotal turnover of Rs.77,42,35,548/- and had earned a gross profit

SUN EXPORTS,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

56,017/- as unexplained within the meaning of section 69 of the IT Act and\nnot charged tax u/s section 115BBE of the I.T. Act\nFurther, it is seen that during the year under consideration, the assessee firm has\ntotal turnover of Rs.77,42,35,548/- and had earned a gross profit

M/S. DHRUV CRAFT MILL PVT. LTD.,MORBI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT

56,017/- as unexplained within the meaning of section 69 of the IT Act and\nnot charged tax u/s section 115BBE of the I.T. Act\nFurther, it is seen that during the year under consideration, the assessee firm has\ntotal turnover of Rs.77,42,35,548/- and had earned a gross profit

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

vii) The assessee has not placed any evidence on record that this is job work and not sale by way of submitting copy of ITR, P&L account, Balance Sheet, TDS return etc. of the parties with whom alleged transactions made. (viii) On the basis of facts and circumstances, AO has correctly adopted the figures of G.P of Rs.2

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC CIT(A), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

vii) The assessee has not placed any evidence on record that this is job work and not sale by way of submitting copy of ITR, P&L account, Balance Sheet, TDS return etc. of the parties with whom alleged transactions made. (viii) On the basis of facts and circumstances, AO has correctly adopted the figures of G.P of Rs.2

DHRUV PRINT PACK INDUSTRIES,MORBI vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

56,017/- as unexplained within the meaning of section 69 of the IT Act and not charged tax u/s section 115BBE of the I.T. Act Further, it is seen that during the year under consideration, the assessee firm has total turnover of Rs.77,42,35,548/- and had earned a gross profit

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

vii) The assessee has not placed any evidence on record that this is job\nwork and not sale by way of submitting copy of ITR, P&L account,\nBalance Sheet, TDS return etc. of the parties with whom alleged\ntransactions made.\n(viii) On the basis of facts and circumstances, AO has correctly adopted\nthe figures of G.P of Rs.2