ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. AXWELL GRANITO PVT. LTD., MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

1,32,68,300/- made on account of unexplained cash credits in the form of share Axwell Granito Pvt. Ltd. capital/unsecured loans within the meaning of section

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 the employer as well as employee’s contribution to provident fund. 13.1 The assessee in the year under consideration has claimed a deduction for the employees and employer contribution to provident fund amounting to Rs. 3,72,841/- and Rs. 3,95,307/- only which was paid

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

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 the employer as well as employee’s contribution to provident fund. 13.1 The assessee in the year under consideration has claimed a deduction for the employees and employer contribution to provident fund amounting to Rs. 3,72,841/- and Rs. 3,95,307/- only which was paid

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

32,40,46,529- Rs.31,35,85,433), as against\naddition of Rs.32,40,46,529/- and granted relief to the assessee of\nRs.31,35,85,433/-. Therefore, assessing officer proposed to levy the penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of the Act, on Rs.1,04,61,096/-.\n12.\nDuring the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply before the\nassessing officer

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

32. Now we take ITA No.391/Ahd/2013. 33. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.3,40,000/- imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs.10,09,000/- made 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

32. Now we take ITA No.391/Ahd/2013. 33. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.3,40,000/- imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs.10,09,000/- made 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

32. Now we take ITA No.391/Ahd/2013. 33. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.3,40,000/- imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs.10,09,000/- made 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

32. Now we take ITA No.391/Ahd/2013. 33. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.3,40,000/- imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs.10,09,000/- made 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

32. Now we take ITA No.391/Ahd/2013. 33. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.3,40,000/- imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs.10,09,000/- made 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

32. Now we take ITA No.391/Ahd/2013. 33. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.3,40,000/- imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs.10,09,000/- made 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

32. Now we take ITA No.391/Ahd/2013. 33. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.3,40,000/- imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs.10,09,000/- made 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

32. Now we take ITA No.391/Ahd/2013. 33. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.3,40,000/- imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs.10,09,000/- made under section 68

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

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 9 MT Maersk Katalin 1 4,03,64,849 10 MT Maersk Pearl 1

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

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 9 MT Maersk Katalin 1 4,03,64,849 10 MT Maersk Pearl 1

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD. RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: us, the error noted in the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned year i.e. AY 2017-18 was that the assessee’s claim of deduction for creation of special reserve from the profit of “eligible business” as per Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had been allowed in excess by the Assessing Officer without properly examining the calculation of the claim submitted by the assessee.

68,93,336/- should be disallowed on account of excess claim of deduction for creating special reserve u/s 36(1)(viii) and should be added to total income of assessee bank.” 5. Ld. Pr. CIT thereafter went on to hold the assessment order as erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue for the Assessing Officer having not examined the claim

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

32,208/-) in income tax return (ITR). In support of this, the assessee\nhas submitted before the assessing officer the copy of computation of income\nfor assessment year (A.Y.) 2020-21. On these facts, no adverse inference was\ndrawn by the assessing officer. The Company has made certain donations,\nwhich are deductible u/s 80G, which are claimed as deduction while

PARESH DAYASHANKAR MADEKA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

32 of the Indian evidences act, 1872. 8. furthermore the evidence act section 106 comes for recue of revenue; the facts mentioned in statement of Mr. Prakash Bagrecha was facts which come to his specific knowledge only as he was operating the business at that them, statement given by later director based on books of account would not have

SHRI SANJAYBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act. Hence the AO added the sum of Rs. 39 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has also confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 16. The learned