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

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

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

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

ii) the amount of income-tax with which the respondent assessee would have been\nchargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to\nin clause (i)\n(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any\nexpenditure or allowance [or set off of any loss] shall be allowed to the respondent

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

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

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 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 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