M/S. FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALIED INDUSTRIES,,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE , RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A Nos. 49 & 50 /Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page No 2 Friends Salt Works & Allied Industry vs. DCIT (TDS) 2. Since common issues are involved for both the years under consideration, both the appeals are being taken up together. We shall first take up the appeal

M/S. FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALIED INDUSTRIES,,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE , RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A Nos. 49 & 50 /Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page No 2 Friends Salt Works & Allied Industry vs. DCIT (TDS) 2. Since common issues are involved for both the years under consideration, both the appeals are being taken up together. We shall first take up the appeal

SHRI SUBIR YUDHISTHIR DAS,BELAPUR, THANE (MAHARASTRA) vs. THE CIT(A)-13, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

127 taxmann.com 72 (SC), took suo motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of COVID-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that could be faced by the litigants across the country. Consequently, it was directed vide order dated 23-3-2020 that the period of limitation in filing petitions / applications / Subir Yudhisthir

SHRI OSHAM JAIN TEMPLE TRUST, RAJKOT,AT . PATANVAV, TALUKA DHORAJI, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE CIT-(EXEMPTIONS), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the matter is being set-aside to the file of the CIT(E) with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 11(1)(d) of the Act. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(E) holding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. At the outset, we observe that the present appeal is time barred by 513 days. Before us the Counsel

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

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

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

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

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

condoning it or taking part in it.\"\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in the illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue

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

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

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

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

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

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

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

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

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

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

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

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue