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)

68,13,104/- was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). 16. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 17. Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR), for the Revenue, has vehemently argued that

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)

68,13,104/- was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). 16. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 17. Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR), for the Revenue, has vehemently argued that

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)

68,13,104/- was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). 16. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 17. Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR), for the Revenue, has vehemently argued that

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)

68,13,104/- was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). 16. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 17. Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR), for the Revenue, has vehemently argued that

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)

68,13,104/- was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). 16. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 17. Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR), for the Revenue, has vehemently argued that

M/S AJAY SALT & CHEMICALS,,UNA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

1)(c) of the Act. In holding so we find support and Asstt. Year 2006-07 7 guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Baroda Tin works Box reported in 221 ITR 661 wherein it was held as under: Sections 68

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereas secondary documentary evidence is the evidence that includes copies of documents that can be presented in the court under certain circumstances or as mentioned in Section 63 and Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. Direct Evidence is acknowledged as the most important evidence required for deciding the matter

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereas secondary documentary evidence is the evidence that includes copies of documents that can be presented in the court under certain circumstances or as mentioned in Section 63 and Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. Direct Evidence is acknowledged as the most important evidence required for deciding the matter

KANDLA EXPORT CORPORATION,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the summaries and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.135/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Kandla Exports Corporation Income – Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Bhavan, Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Ahmedabad – 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.136/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Kandla Exports Corporation Vs Income – Tax, Central Circle – Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, . 2(3), 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Bhavan, Ahmedabad - 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent)

68,13,104/- was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). 16. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 17. Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR), for the Revenue, has vehemently argued that assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, has not established, the availability of interest free funds, and assessee

ATUL AUTO LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

68,926/-. 21. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the CIT(A) confined the disallowance to Rs. 3,35,877/- made by the assessee in its return of income and deleted the balance disallowance as follows: “During the year assessee Company has earned tax free income of Rs.55,32,792/- being dividend income from investment in mutual funds

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S ATUL AUTO LIMITED,, SHAPAR.VERAVAL

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

68,926/-. 21. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the CIT(A) confined the disallowance to Rs. 3,35,877/- made by the assessee in its return of income and deleted the balance disallowance as follows: “During the year assessee Company has earned tax free income of Rs.55,32,792/- being dividend income from investment in mutual funds

RATHOD HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT AND FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CO.,,RAJKOT GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3),, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs.9,221/-. The assessment order was passed under section 143(3) on 29.3.1996 determining total income at Rs.3,47,340/-. The ld.AO has made additions as under: 1

M/S. LEOPARD VITRIFIED PVT. LTD.,VILLAGE MATEL, DIST. MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

1) Shri Ravikumar Jayntibhai Bhorania (Sr No. 24 of the Chart) has invested total Rs. 35 Lac (Rs. 19.60 Las of loan and Rs. 15.40 of Share Capital) during the year. Onm perusal of his Balance Sheet to trace the source of these investment it is seen thathe has reposrted Rs. 3.17 Lacs of own fund (i.E. capital

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

Appeals are dismissed, Assessee's appeals are partly allowed

221,885.24 which means this amount is payable by\nShri Pankaj Lodhiya.\n2. VARIATION MARGIN: Variation margin is the additional funds that a broker\nmay request from a client so that the initial margin requirements of his position keep\nup with any losses. If the client's equity falls below the initial margin requirement\nwhen marked to the closing price

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

221,885.24 which means this amount is payable by\nShri Pankaj Lodhiya.\n2. VARIATION MARGIN: Variation margin is the additional funds that a broker\nmay request from a client so that the initial margin requirements of his position keep\nup with any losses. If the client's equity falls below the initial margin requirement\nwhen marked to the closing price

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

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

221,885.24 which means this amount is payable by Shri Pankaj Lodhiya. 2. VARIATION MARGIN: Variation margin is the additional funds that a broker may request from a client so that the initial margin requirements of his position keep up with any losses. If the client's equity falls below the initial margin requirement when marked to the closing price

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

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

221,885.24 which means this amount is payable by Shri Pankaj Lodhiya. 2. VARIATION MARGIN: Variation margin is the additional funds that a broker may request from a client so that the initial margin requirements of his position keep up with any losses. If the client's equity falls below the initial margin requirement when marked to the closing price

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

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

221,885.24 which means this amount is payable by Shri Pankaj Lodhiya. 2. VARIATION MARGIN: Variation margin is the additional funds that a broker may request from a client so that the initial margin requirements of his position keep up with any losses. If the client's equity falls below the initial margin requirement when marked to the closing price