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

68,148/- being the disallowance on account of delay in payments made to employer as well as employee's contribution to provident fund. 3. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the addition of Rs.7,23,110/- being the disallowance on account of investigation expenses paid by the bank. 4. The Ld.CIT

THE MORBI CITIZENS CREDIT CO-OPRATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MORVI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.285/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) The Morbi Citizens Credit Co- Vs. The Assessment Unit, Operative Society Ltd., Income Tax Department Above Murlidhar Sales National Faceless Agency, Savsar Plot, Ram Assessment Center Chowk, Morbid - 363641 (Nfac), Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabat2850K (Appellant) (Respondent)

24. During the course of hearing, ld Counsel for the assessee, clarified the Bench that assessee, by mistake, wrongly submitted, in the written submission, before the ld. PCIT, as if, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80P(2) (a) (i) of the Act, in respect of amount ofRs.18,41,436/- and Rs.52,350/-, in fact, the assessee has claimed

MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

24 of the Act which states\nthat -"Where the property has been acquired or constructed with\nborrowed capital, the interest, if any, payable on such capital borrowed\nfor the period prior to the previous year in which the property has been\nacquired or constructed shall be deducted under this clause in equal\ninstallments for the said previous year

KATARIA SNACK PELLETS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.468/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kataria Snack Pellets Pvt. Ltd. The Acit, Circle-1(1) बनाम 510, Gidc, Metoda Kalawad Road Rajkot Rajkot-360021, Gujarat Vs. Pan : Aafck2028L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

vi) Assessee contended that section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is not applicable to genuine business transaction. In this regard, as per the provisions of Income Tax Act. 1961 56(2)(vii)(b) reads as under: “(viib) where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested receives in any previous year, from

SHRI VIPULBHAI YOGESHKUMAR TELI,CHALALA VILLAGE, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ITO WARD 3(1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68 of the Act and accordingly added to the income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2011-12. I T A N o . 2 2 4 / RJ T / 2 0 25 Vi p u lbh a i Yo g e s h bh ai T e li 6. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried

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 Corporation Limited, 21 Collyer Peesport Quay, # 02-00 HSBC Building, 6 MT Maersk 3 26,96,32,792 Singapore. Princess 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 8 MT Maersk 2 19,15,34,687 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 ISS Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT Progress

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 Corporation Limited, 21 Collyer Peesport Quay, # 02-00 HSBC Building, 6 MT Maersk 3 26,96,32,792 Singapore. Princess 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 8 MT Maersk 2 19,15,34,687 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 ISS Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT Progress

LATE SMT. PRITI A. GANDHI L/R. SHRI ANILBHAI A. GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

24 of the Act which states\nthat -"Where the property has been acquired or constructed with\nborrowed capital, the interest, if any, payable on such capital borrowed\nfor the period prior to the previous year in which the property has been\nacquired or constructed shall be deducted under this clause in equal\ninstallments for the said previous year

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

vi) Ground No.6. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of sale made to group concern of Rs.33,56,700/-. [ This is ground No.5, ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 of revenue`s appeal

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

vi) Ground No.6. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of sale made to group concern of Rs.33,56,700/-. [ This is ground No.5, ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 of revenue`s appeal

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

vi) Ground No.6. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of sale made to group concern of Rs.33,56,700/-. [ This is ground No.5, ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 of revenue`s appeal

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

vi) Ground No.6. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of sale made to group concern of Rs.33,56,700/-. [ This is ground No.5, ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 of revenue`s appeal

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

vi) Ground No.6. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of sale made to group concern of Rs.33,56,700/-. [ This is ground No.5, ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 of revenue`s appeal

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

2, the assessee has challenged invocation of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act at the end of the AO, whereas in ground no.3, the assessee has challenged addition of Rs.4,29,470/-. The assessee has disclosed agriculture income of Rs.4,49,470/- which was not believed by the AO, and addition under section 68

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

2, the assessee has challenged invocation of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act at the end of the AO, whereas in ground no.3, the assessee has challenged addition of Rs.4,29,470/-. The assessee has disclosed agriculture income of Rs.4,49,470/- which was not believed by the AO, and addition under section 68

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

2, the assessee has challenged invocation of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act at the end of the AO, whereas in ground no.3, the assessee has challenged addition of Rs.4,29,470/-. The assessee has disclosed agriculture income of Rs.4,49,470/- which was not believed by the AO, and addition under section 68

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

2, the assessee has challenged invocation of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act at the end of the AO, whereas in ground no.3, the assessee has challenged addition of Rs.4,29,470/-. The assessee has disclosed agriculture income of Rs.4,49,470/- which was not believed by the AO, and addition under section 68

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

2, the assessee has challenged invocation of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act at the end of the AO, whereas in ground no.3, the assessee has challenged addition of Rs.4,29,470/-. The assessee has disclosed agriculture income of Rs.4,49,470/- which was not believed by the AO, and addition under section 68