SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

104 of the Companies Act, 1956. The assessee submitted that the capital\nreduction is duly approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The assessee\nsubmitted before the assessing officer that when the balances of the assets at the\nend of the year are reflected at a reduced value, then amount of such reduction\nshall be treated as 'actual write

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

gain by lot or chance, which lead to the loss of the hard\nearned money of the undiscerning and improvident common man and thereby lower his standard of\nliving and drive him into a chronic state of indebtedness and eventually disrupt the peace and\nhappiness of his humble home could possibly have been intended by our Constitution makers

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)

104 (Delhi)/[2018] 404 ITR 757 (Delhi)/[2018] 300 CTR 510 (Delhi) wherein it has been held that where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit. 7. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) wherein

MAVANI NILESH HARISHBHAI HUF,PORBANDAR vs. ITO, WD-2(3), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

104 ITR 36 (Madras), wherein Hon`ble Court held as follows: “Section 35(1) of the 1922 Act, and section 154 of the 1961 Act, are in pari materia. Both confer jurisdiction on an ITO for rectifying mistakes apparent from the record, the only difference being that an appeal is provided under the 1961 Act, against an order under section

SMT. MUMTAJBANU A. JIVANI,AMRELI vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 (1) (4), AMRELI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

104 115 9 He also contended that even the comparable instances which were taken by the DVO were quite largely comparable to the assessee. He drew our attention to paper book page no. 38 where the DVO had listed the comparable instances for the purpose of valuation pointing out that the rate per square meter of the comparable instances noted

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

104 (Delhi)/[2018] 404 ITR 757 (Delhi)/[2018] 300 CTR 510 (Delhi) wherein it has been held\nthat where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits\nand corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit.\n7.\nIn Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610\n(Allahabad

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

104 (Delhi)/[2018] 404 ITR 757 (Delhi)/[2018] 300 CTR 510 (Delhi) wherein it has been held\nthat where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits\nand corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit.\n7.\nIn Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610\n(Allahabad

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

104 (Delhi)/[2018] 404 ITR 757 (Delhi)/[2018] 300 CTR 510 (Delhi) wherein it has been held\nthat where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits\nand corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit.\n7.\nIn Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610\n(Allahabad

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

104 (Delhi)/[2018] 404 ITR 757 (Delhi)/[2018] 300 CTR 510 (Delhi) wherein it has been held\nthat where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits\nand corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit.\n7.\nIn Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610\n(Allahabad

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

104 (Delhi)/[2018] 404 ITR 757 (Delhi)/[2018] 300 CTR 510 (Delhi) wherein it has been held\nthat where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits\nand corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit.\n7. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610\n(Allahabad

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

104 (Delhi)/[2018] 404 ITR 757 (Delhi)/[2018] 300 CTR 510 (Delhi) wherein it has been held that where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit.\n7. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) wherein

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

104 (Delhi)/[2018] 404 ITR 757 (Delhi)/[2018] 300 CTR 510 (Delhi) wherein it has been held\nthat where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits\nand corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit.\n7.\nIn Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610\n(Allahabad

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

104 (Delhi)/[2018] 404 ITR 757 (Delhi)/[2018] 300 CTR 510 (Delhi) wherein it has been held\nthat where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits\nand corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit.\n7.\nIn Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610\n(Allahabad

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

104 (Delhi)/[2018] 404 ITR 757 (Delhi)/[2018] 300 CTR 510 (Delhi) wherein it has been held\nthat where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits\nand corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit.\n7. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610\n(Allahabad