HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, are satisfied. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 01/04/2021 was set aside by ld. PCIT for fresh assessment only to the extent of the issues discussed (supra) and ld. PCIT directed

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT 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/-.\n\n12. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply before the\nassessing

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. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply before the\nassessing officer

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT 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. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply before the\nassessing officer

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, 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

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

ii. No details of the parties to whom the assessee gave the advances. iii. The impugned advances written off in the year under consideration represents the prior period expenses which cannot be allowed in the year under consideration. 11.9 It is an undisputed fact the advances written off by the assessee as discussed above cannot be categorized as bad-debts

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

ii. No details of the parties to whom the assessee gave the advances. iii. The impugned advances written off in the year under consideration represents the prior period expenses which cannot be allowed in the year under consideration. 11.9 It is an undisputed fact the advances written off by the assessee as discussed above cannot be categorized as bad-debts

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT 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. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply before the\nassessing officer

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/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. Learned Senior DR for the Revenue submitted that in respect of addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) to the tune of Rs.1,32,68,300/-, the assessee has miserably failed to explain the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness

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

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 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 of the Act. 34. Brief facts

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 of the Act. 34. Brief facts

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 of the Act. 34. Brief facts

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 of the Act. 34. Brief facts

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 of the Act. 34. Brief facts

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 of the Act. 34. Brief facts