GRENIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED,WANKANER-MORBI vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1) RKT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

163/- made u/s 68, on account of\nunexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period, without proper\nverification or calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer.\n(2) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee did not discharge its\nonus under section

ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GRENIC TILES PVT LTD, MORBI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

163/- made u/s 68, on account of\nunexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period, without proper\nverification or calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer.\n(2) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee did not discharge its\nonus under Section

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. SIYARAM METAL UDYOG PVT. LTD.,, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

163 & 164/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Siyaram Metal Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, B-18, Shanker Tekri, Udyog Nagar, Central Circle-1, Jamnagar Rajkot PAN: AAOCS0508E (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 150/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Years: 2014-15 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Siyaram Metal Udyog

KALPESH RAVJIBHAI SOJITRA,JASDAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrid Hearing) Kalpesh Ravjibhai Sojitra, Vs. The Ito, Prop. Sojitra Petrolium, Bypass Ward-2(1)(2), Circle Atkot Road, Jasdan, Rajkot 360050, Rajkot-( Guj) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bqmps8120G (/Appellant) (/Respondent)

68 amounting to Rs. 90,39,290/- is duly justified, owing to the failure of the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash deposits; no violation of principles of natural justice has been established and no supporting documentary evidence has been submitted either at assessment, therefore findings of the assessing officer, was confirmed by the learned

M/S. MAGNUM CERAMICS PVT. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MORBI CIRCLE, MORBI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2012-13 M/S.Magnum Ceramic P.Ltd. The Acit, Morbi Circle Plot No.207/24, Gidc Estate Vs Morbi. 8-A, National Highway At. Refaleshwar Morbi 362 268 Pan : Aafcm 2216 G

68,460/-. Accordingly surplus of tax paid under 115JB as opposed to that payable under normal provision, amounting to Rs.10,40,026/- ,was carried forward for set off in subsequent years as MAT credit as per the provisions of section 115JAA(5) of the Act . B. He thereafter contended that in the computationof income for the impugned year i.e.Asst.Year

M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. (6). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed application of provisions of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961. (7). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A and 271AAC of the I.T. Act, 1961. (8). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly charged

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

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

section 142(1) of the Act has been issued confronting various incriminating documents impounded during the Income-tax Survey and seeking assessee's response on the same. Issue Involved: 5. The brief facts of the case are that a survey u/s 133A of the Act at the premises of the assessee M/s Six Twenty Realty Pvt Ltd located

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SIX TWENTY REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

section 143(2) of the Act issued. Further, notice under\nsection 142(1) of the Act has been issued confronting various incriminating\ndocuments impounded during the Income-tax Survey and seeking assessee's\nresponse on the same.\n\nIssue Involved:\n\n5. The brief facts of the case are that a survey u/s 133A

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT LTD,RAJOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

section 143(2) of the Act issued. Further, notice under\nsection 142(1) of the Act has been issued confronting various incriminating\ndocuments impounded during the Income-tax Survey and seeking assessee's\nresponse on the same.\n\nIssue Involved:\n\n5. The brief facts of the case are that a survey u/s 133A

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

section 143(2) of the Act issued. Further, notice under\nsection 142(1) of the Act has been issued confronting various incriminating\ndocuments impounded during the Income-tax Survey and seeking assessee's\nresponse on the same.\n\nIssue Involved:\n\n5. The brief facts of the case are that a survey u/s 133A

VITARAG EXPORT INDUSTRIES,JUNAGADH ROAD vs. ITO, WARD - 2(1)(1), RAJKOT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, ground No.5 raised by the assessee, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.354/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Vitrang Export Industries, Vs. The Ito, Junagadh Road, Near Railway Ward – 2(1)(1), Crossing, Dhoraji, Gujarat - 360140 Rajkot "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfv2407M (Appellant) (Respondent)

163/-. The return of income of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Later on, the assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 23.09.2013 to the assessee, which was duly served upon the assessee. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) were issued