MANOJBHAI C. KAMDAR,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.572/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2024-25) Manojbhai C. Kamdar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1)(1), A-47, Aalap Green City, Raiya Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) - 360007 Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adgpk8679J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr

1A) of the Act. On a plain reading of the statutory provisions, there exists no express bar either in section 87A or section 111A for denial of rebate in respect of tax payable on short-term capital gains

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

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

1A)\nof section 115J does not empower the Assessing Officer to embark upon a fresh inquiry in\nregard to the entries made in the books of account of the company. The said sub-section, as a\nmatter of fact, mandates the company to maintain its account in accordance with the\nrequirements of the Companies Act which mandate, according

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1A) was recorded wherein the assessee has claimed to have earned income from the business of shipping agency which was not disclosed in the income tax return. The assessee simultaneously during the survey proceedings agreed to disclose an income of 9 1,03,50,000/- in a period of three years beginning from

SHRI MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN ,GANDHIDHAM vs. THEACIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1A) was recorded wherein the assessee has claimed to have earned income from the business of shipping agency which was not disclosed in the income tax return. The assessee simultaneously during the survey proceedings agreed to disclose an income of 9 1,03,50,000/- in a period of three years beginning from

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1A) was recorded wherein the assessee has claimed to have earned income from the business of shipping agency which was not disclosed in the income tax return. The assessee simultaneously during the survey proceedings agreed to disclose an income of 9 1,03,50,000/- in a period of three years beginning from

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1A) was recorded wherein the assessee has claimed to have earned income from the business of shipping agency which was not disclosed in the income tax return. The assessee simultaneously during the survey proceedings agreed to disclose an income of 9 1,03,50,000/- in a period of three years beginning from

PARAG MAKANBHAI PARSANA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

1A) further provide that seller will not be required to collect the tax from the buyer if such buyer furnishes to the seller a declaration in writing (in duplicate) in prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner to the effect that goods referred to in column (2) of the aforesaid table are to be utilised for the purpose

VISHAL ENTERPRISE, ,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

1A) further provide that seller will not be required to collect the tax from the buyer if such buyer furnishes to the seller a declaration in writing (in duplicate) in prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner to the effect that goods referred to in column (2) of the aforesaid table are to be utilised for the purpose

RAKESH BASANTILAL LADDHA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

1A) further provide that seller will not be required to collect the tax from the buyer if such buyer furnishes to the seller a declaration in writing (in duplicate) in prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner to the effect that goods referred to in column (2) of the aforesaid table are to be utilised for the purpose

JAYESHBHAI KANJIBHAI DANGARIYA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

1A) further provide that seller will not be required to collect the tax from the buyer if such buyer furnishes to the seller a declaration in writing (in duplicate) in prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner to the effect that goods referred to in column (2) of the aforesaid table are to be utilised for the purpose

SHRI IKBALBHAI JUMABHAI KHIRANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1), RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 30.08.2024, which Shri Ikabalbhai Jumabhai Khirani vs. ITO in turn arises out of an order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, on 14.03.2023. 2. Grounds of appeal raised

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)

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms of which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on assessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for reopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act. 2. Thee learned CIT(A)-1 has erred

INTERMARK SHIPPING AGENCIES P. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-4,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 640/Rjt/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Intermark Shipping Ito Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tds-4, Gandhidham, Ii Floor, Ajanta Comm. Plot No. 32, Sector-3, Center No. 1, Plot No. Gandhidham, Kachchh 277/278, Ward 12-B Gandhidham (Kutch) Pan No. Aaa Ci5 689 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Arvind Sontakka, Dr Assessee By : Shri M. J. Ranpura, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020

1A) of the Act. The said addition has been upheld by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal before us. Heard the parties, perused the records. 3. The short point involved in this particular case is this as to whether the payment in question can be termed as “Royalty” under section 9 of the Act and if that

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

gains or profits from any trade, business, profession or vocation, for whatever period of time such trade, business, profession or vocation may have been carried on or exercised;…” From the provision of above cited section 10 of Income Tax Act Singapore, , the assessing officer has observed that it is clear that income chargeable to income tax in Singapore should either

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

gains or profits from any trade, business, profession or vocation, for whatever period of time such trade, business, profession or vocation may have been carried on or exercised;…” From the provision of above cited section 10 of Income Tax Act Singapore, , the assessing officer has observed that it is clear that income chargeable to income tax in Singapore should either

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Capital Gains and also Income from Other Sources. For the asst year 2006-07 the assessee filed his Return of Income on 31-07-2006 admitting total income of Rs.4,17,050/=. The return was processed under section 143[1] dated 06-12-2006 and refund was issued to the assessee. Thus there was no regular assessment u/s.143

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Capital Gains and also Income from Other Sources. For the asst year 2006-07 the assessee filed his Return of Income on 31-07-2006 admitting total income of Rs.4,17,050/=. The return was processed under section 143[1] dated 06-12-2006 and refund was issued to the assessee. Thus there was no regular assessment u/s.143

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

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms\nof which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on\nassessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for\nreopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act.\n2. Thee learned CIT(A)-1 has erred