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

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

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

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

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

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

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

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

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

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

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

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

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

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

132 of the Act, was\ncarried out at the residential, as well as business premises of the assessee, on\n20.05.2013. Thereafter, in response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, dated\n10.10.2013, the assessee filed return of income, on 08.08.2014, declaring total\nincome of Rs.2,66,40,980/-. Accordingly, in this case, assessment u/s 143(3)\nr.w.s 153A

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

132 of the Act, was\ncarried out at the residential, as well as business premises of the assessee, on\n20.05.2013. Thereafter, in response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, dated\n10.10.2013, the assessee filed return of income, on 08.08.2014, declaring total\nincome of Rs.2,66,40,980/-. Accordingly, in this case, assessment u/s 143(3)\nr.w.s 153A

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

132 of the Act, was\ncarried out at the residential, as well as business premises of the assessee, on\n20.05.2013. Thereafter, in response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, dated\n10.10.2013, the assessee filed return of income, on 08.08.2014, declaring total\nincome of Rs.2,66,40,980/-. Accordingly, in this case, assessment u/s 143(3)\nr.w.s 153A

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

132 of the Act, was\ncarried out at the residential, as well as business premises of the assessee, on\n20.05.2013. Thereafter, in response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, dated\n10.10.2013, the assessee filed return of income, on 08.08.2014, declaring total\nincome of Rs.2,66,40,980/-. Accordingly, in this case, assessment u/s 143(3)\nr.w.s 153A

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

132 of the Act, was\ncarried out at the residential, as well as business premises of the assessee, on\n20.05.2013. Thereafter, in response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, dated\n10.10.2013, the assessee filed return of income, on 08.08.2014, declaring total\nincome of Rs.2,66,40,980/-. Accordingly, in this case, assessment u/s 143(3)\nr.w.s 153A

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

132 of the Act, was\ncarried out at the residential, as well as business premises of the assessee, on\n20.05.2013. Thereafter, in response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, dated\n10.10.2013, the assessee filed return of income, on 08.08.2014, declaring total\nincome of Rs.2,66,40,980/-. Accordingly, in this case, assessment u/s 143(3)\nr.w.s 153A

SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act. 5. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and drives his income under the head salary and other sources. There was a search conducted under section 132 of the Act at the premises of the assessee dated 24th of June 2010. The assessee in the year under

SHRI KISHOR GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act. 5. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and drives his income under the head salary and other sources. There was a search conducted under section 132 of the Act at the premises of the assessee dated 24th of June 2010. The assessee in the year under

SHRI SANJAYBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act. 5. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and drives his income under the head salary and other sources. There was a search conducted under section 132 of the Act at the premises of the assessee dated 24th of June 2010. The assessee in the year under

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