DHAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,DHAR, TALUKA: - SAVARKUNDLA, DIST. AMRELI-GUJARAT. vs. THE DCIT(CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

D" Bench, Mumbai on 11 January, 2021 held - Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the decisions referred to I.T.A No. 33/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 4 Dhar Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. DCIT(CPC) above and more particularly applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

11. The principles which emerge where sums of money are credited as Share Capital/Premium are: 1. The assessee is under a legal obligation to prove the genuineness of the transaction, the identity of the creditors, and credit-worthiness of the investors who should have the financial capacity to make the question to the satisfaction of the assessing officer

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

68,000 Shanghai Banking 6 MT Maersk Princess 3 26,96,32,792^ Corporation Limitd, 21 Collyer Quay ft 02-00 HSBC Building, Singapore 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 MT Maersk Progress 1 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 13 ISS Shipping India

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

68,000 Shanghai Banking 6 MT Maersk Princess 3 26,96,32,792^ Corporation Limitd, 21 Collyer Quay ft 02-00 HSBC Building, Singapore 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 MT Maersk Progress 1 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 13 ISS Shipping India

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

D. M. Rindani, Ld. AR\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing\n: 03/11/2025\nघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025\nआदेश / ORDER\nPer, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:\nCaptioned appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the\nAssessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, are directed against the\ncommon order passed by the Learned Commissioner

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

D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned Cross appeals have been filed at the instance of the Revenue and Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax ITA Nos.947/Rjt/2010 & 306/Rjt/2013 A.Ys.2007-08 & 2008-09. 2 (Appeals) – Jamnagar [CIT(A) in short] dated 17/03/2010 and 24/01/2013 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

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

D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned Cross appeals have been filed at the instance of the Revenue and Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax ITA Nos.947/Rjt/2010 & 306/Rjt/2013 A.Ys.2007-08 & 2008-09. 2 (Appeals) – Jamnagar [CIT(A) in short] dated 17/03/2010 and 24/01/2013 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The ld.CIT(A) has decided four quantum appeals of the assessee against the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) r.w. Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the Asstt.Years 2001-02, 2005-06 to 2007-08 by separate orders on 27.11.2009. These orders have been challenged

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The ld.CIT(A) has decided four quantum appeals of the assessee against the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) r.w. Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the Asstt.Years 2001-02, 2005-06 to 2007-08 by separate orders on 27.11.2009. These orders have been challenged

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The ld.CIT(A) has decided four quantum appeals of the assessee against the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) r.w. Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the Asstt.Years 2001-02, 2005-06 to 2007-08 by separate orders on 27.11.2009. These orders have been challenged

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The ld.CIT(A) has decided four quantum appeals of the assessee against the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) r.w. Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the Asstt.Years 2001-02, 2005-06 to 2007-08 by separate orders on 27.11.2009. These orders have been challenged

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The ld.CIT(A) has decided four quantum appeals of the assessee against the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) r.w. Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the Asstt.Years 2001-02, 2005-06 to 2007-08 by separate orders on 27.11.2009. These orders have been challenged

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The ld.CIT(A) has decided four quantum appeals of the assessee against the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) r.w. Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the Asstt.Years 2001-02, 2005-06 to 2007-08 by separate orders on 27.11.2009. These orders have been challenged

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The ld.CIT(A) has decided four quantum appeals of the assessee against the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) r.w. Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the Asstt.Years 2001-02, 2005-06 to 2007-08 by separate orders on 27.11.2009. These orders have been challenged