SHRI JAWAHIR RAVICHANDRA MEHTA,DUBAI(UAE) vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result appeal of the assessee vide ITA/81/Rjt/2020 stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Memebr

e in ITA No. 81/Rjt/2020 & Ors. [Shri Jawahir R. Mehta & Ors.] - 22 - the return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the act. The said the interest income has been taxed by the assessing officer on protective basis and on substantive basis in the case of father of the assessee. However as held by ITAT

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)

13. The ld. PCIT also noted that with effect from 01/06/2015, Explanation 2 to the section 263(1) has been inserted by which scope of section 263 of the Act has been expanded by incorporating the concept of "deemed to be erroneous". The same is reproduced as under: “Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section

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

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 s.143

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

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 s.143

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD. RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: us, the error noted in the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned year i.e. AY 2017-18 was that the assessee’s claim of deduction for creation of special reserve from the profit of “eligible business” as per Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had been allowed in excess by the Assessing Officer without properly examining the calculation of the claim submitted by the assessee.

68,93,336/- should be disallowed on account of excess claim of deduction for creating special reserve u/s 36(1)(viii) and should be added to total income of assessee bank.” 5. Ld. Pr. CIT thereafter went on to hold the assessment order as erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue for the Assessing Officer having not examined the claim