THE ACIT GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM vs. SOFTEL MACHINES LIMITED , GANDHIDHAM ( KUTCH)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

198/-. The assessee is mainly engaged in manufacturing and trading of kitchen appliances and consumers durables. The assessee`s case was taken up for compulsory manual scrutiny and a notice under section 143(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 was issued on 24.09.2017 and was duly served upon through ITBA email facility. Thereafter, a notice

THE ITO, WARD-4,, MORBI vs. M/S RAIYANI COTTON INDUSTRIES,, MORBI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No. 129/Rjt/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12)

68 of the Act on account of bogus loans/deposits received from four different parties. 8. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties, we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. 9. It appears from the record available before us that the Ld. AO has contradicted these loans as bogus as the appellant

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

68,936/-, and he agreed to it. ITA Nos.111-113/Rjt/2024A.Ys. 13-14 to 15-16 M/s KrupaluMettalsPvt. Ltd. 15 19.6 I find that during investigations of the case, statements of various buyers (Noticee Nos. 3 to 10) were recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and each of the said buyer has categorically admitted that they

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC CIT(A), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

68,936/-, and he agreed to it. ITA Nos.111-113/Rjt/2024A.Ys. 13-14 to 15-16 M/s KrupaluMettalsPvt. Ltd. 15 19.6 I find that during investigations of the case, statements of various buyers (Noticee Nos. 3 to 10) were recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and each of the said buyer has categorically admitted that they

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

68,936/-, and he agreed to it.\n==End of OCR for page 14==\nITA Nos. 111-113/Rjt/2024A.Ys. 13-14 to 15-16\nM/s KrupaluMettalsPvt. Ltd.\n15\n19.6 I find that during investigations of the case, statements of various buyers\n(Noticee Nos. 3 to 10) were recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act,\n1944

JAYESH KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

68 in respect of share sale receipts from a penny stock treating the same as Income from Other Sources and thereby rejecting assessee's claim of LTCG. Tribunal observed that the assessee had made huge gain due to price increase, in comparison to purchase price, but the increase in price is not commensurate to the financials of the company. VIII.Ld

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

68 in respect of share sale receipts from a penny stock treating the same as Income from Other Sources and thereby rejecting assessee's claim of LTCG. Tribunal observed that the assessee had made huge gain due to price increase, in comparison to purchase price, but the increase in price is not commensurate to the financials of the company. VIII.Ld

BHANUBEN MANSUKHLAL KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

68 in respect of share sale receipts from a penny stock treating the same as Income from Other Sources and thereby rejecting assessee's claim of LTCG. Tribunal observed that the assessee had made huge gain due to price increase, in comparison to purchase price, but the increase in price is not commensurate to the financials of the company. VIII.Ld

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

68 in respect of share sale receipts from a penny stock treating the same as Income from Other Sources and thereby rejecting assessee's claim of LTCG. Tribunal observed that the assessee had made huge gain due to price increase, in comparison to purchase price, but the increase in price is not commensurate to the financials of the company. VIII.Ld

JITENDRABHAI BHAGVANBHAI DALVADI,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Jitendrabhai B Dalvadi 2 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That

THE ITO, WARD-3(2),, JAMNAGAR vs. SHRI RAJESH GULABRAI SHAYANI,, JAM-KHAMBHALIA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

68,219/- M/s. Jain Enterprise Rs. 4,29,04,603/- M/s. Shiv Oil Industries Rs. 6,30,467/- Total Rs. 10,08,76,757/- 3.1 It is further found by the Sales Tax Department that all the above four parties were involved in billing activity. The billing activities are a transaction of purchase or sale made by a party without