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

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 officer, the relevant portion of the assessee's submission is reproduced\nas under:\n\n\"6. As regard the levy of penalty on addition

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

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, the relevant portion of the assessee's submission is reproduced\nas under:\n"6. As regard the levy of penalty on addition retained

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

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, the relevant portion of the assessee's submission is reproduced\nas under:\n"6. As regard the levy of penalty on addition retained

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

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, the relevant portion of the assessee's submission is reproduced\nas under:\n\"6. As regard the levy of penalty on addition retained

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

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, the relevant portion of the assessee's submission is reproduced\nas under:\n\"6. As regard the levy of penalty on addition retained

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

68\nto 69D are residuary sections and the same is applied only where the amount was\nnot taxed under any specific chapter. In the present case in hand, the respondent\nassessee company is engaged in the business of Jewellery. The difference in the\nquantity of stock was during the normal business activities of the respondent assessee\ncompany. The excess

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

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, the relevant portion of the assessee's submission is reproduced\nas under:\n\"6. As regard the levy of penalty on addition retained

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

35,27,716 account maintained with the The 4 MT Maersk Piper 1 4,68,78,299 Hongkong and Shanghi Banking 5 MT Maersk 1 1,21,68,000 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

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

35,27,716 account maintained with the The 4 MT Maersk Piper 1 4,68,78,299 Hongkong and Shanghi Banking 5 MT Maersk 1 1,21,68,000 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

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

35. With the assistance of the ld.CIT-DR, we have gone through the submissions filed by the assessee. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has direct bearing on the controversy. Therefore, it is pertinent to take note of the section. "271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1

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

35. With the assistance of the ld.CIT-DR, we have gone through the submissions filed by the assessee. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has direct bearing on the controversy. Therefore, it is pertinent to take note of the section. "271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1

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

35. With the assistance of the ld.CIT-DR, we have gone through the submissions filed by the assessee. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has direct bearing on the controversy. Therefore, it is pertinent to take note of the section. "271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (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

35. With the assistance of the ld.CIT-DR, we have gone through the submissions filed by the assessee. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has direct bearing on the controversy. Therefore, it is pertinent to take note of the section. "271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1

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

35. With the assistance of the ld.CIT-DR, we have gone through the submissions filed by the assessee. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has direct bearing on the controversy. Therefore, it is pertinent to take note of the section. "271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (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

35. With the assistance of the ld.CIT-DR, we have gone through the submissions filed by the assessee. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has direct bearing on the controversy. Therefore, it is pertinent to take note of the section. "271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (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

35. With the assistance of the ld.CIT-DR, we have gone through the submissions filed by the assessee. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has direct bearing on the controversy. Therefore, it is pertinent to take note of the section. "271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1