SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1) (2) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1) (2) , RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

AMBARADI SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,AMBARADI , DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT(CPC), BANGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

276/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal/not allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the return was not filed as per Section 139(1) of the Act but within the time limit

DHARESHWAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. ,VILLAGE: - DHARESHWAR, TALUKA: - RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

276/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal/not allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the return was not filed as per Section 139(1) of the Act but within the time limit

AMRUTPUR SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,VILLAGE: - AMRUTPUR TALUKA DHARI, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

276/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal/not allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the return was not filed as per Section 139(1) of the Act but within the time limit

SHREE SANALIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,LITAL MOTALILIYA SANALIYA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

276/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal/not allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the return was not filed as per Section 139(1) of the Act but within the time limit

ALIUDEPUR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,ALIUDEPUR VILLAGE, TALUKA LATHI, DIST.: - AMRELI-365430 vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

SHREE ANTALIYA KHETI VIKAS KARYAKARI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,LILIYA MOTA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

DAHIDA SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED ,VILLAGE: - DAHIDA, DIST.:- AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

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 on account of bogus loans/deposits received from four different parties. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s. 40A(3) made by AO being purchase of kapas from different parties of total Rs. 5,00,000/-. 7. On the facts and circumstances

ASHOK SHANKARNARAYAN HEBBAR,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

276/- during the year under consideration. However, assessee has not maintained any books of account. In this regard, provisions of section 44AA(2) of the act is reproduced as under:- “(2) Every person carrying on business or profession [not being a profession referred to in sub- section (1)] shall,— (i) if his income from business or profession exceeds

ASHOK SHANKARNARAYAN HEBBAR,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

276/- during the year under consideration. However, assessee has not maintained any books of account. In this regard, provisions of section 44AA(2) of the act is reproduced as under:- “(2) Every person carrying on business or profession [not being a profession referred to in sub- section (1)] shall,— (i) if his income from business or profession exceeds

ANUP A. SHAH,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 106/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2005-2006 वष"

section 271(1)(c) can be sustained in case of estimated addition. At this juncture we feel pertinent to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT v. Norton Electronics System Pvt. Ltd [2014] 41 taxamm.com 280 [Allahabad] where the Hon’ble bench observed as under: 6. Needless to mention that the quantum proceedings

SHRI KRISHANMOHAN RAMWADH SHINGH,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, JAMNAGAR

In the result appeal, of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68,550/- but the AO was not satisfied with the amount of income declared by the assessee and therefore he estimated the gross total income of the assessee at the rate of 8% of the total turnover. Thus the AO framed the assessment at Rs.10,36,850/- after allowing the deduction available to the assessee under Chapter

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