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

43,236/-, as there was error in considering gold and silver\nrate and mistake in calculation thereof. Accordingly total income revised at\nRs.61,87,59,134/-.\n8.\nThe Ld CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad in order No. CIT(A)-ll/C, C. 2/Raj/086-\nR/2017-18, dated 26.03.2018, granted relief to the assessee, aggregating to\nRs.50,18,25,184/-, in respect of various additions

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

6 are general grounds of appeal, and did not call for recording of any finding, hence, rejected. 16. In ground no.7, the assessee has challenged levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D. It is consequential in nature and rejected. 17. In Ground No.8 the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty proceedings. To our mind

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

6 are general grounds of appeal, and did not call for recording of any finding, hence, rejected. 16. In ground no.7, the assessee has challenged levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D. It is consequential in nature and rejected. 17. In Ground No.8 the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty proceedings. To our mind

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

6 are general grounds of appeal, and did not call for recording of any finding, hence, rejected. 16. In ground no.7, the assessee has challenged levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D. It is consequential in nature and rejected. 17. In Ground No.8 the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty proceedings. To our mind

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

6 are general grounds of appeal, and did not call for recording of any finding, hence, rejected. 16. In ground no.7, the assessee has challenged levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D. It is consequential in nature and rejected. 17. In Ground No.8 the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty proceedings. To our mind

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

6 are general grounds of appeal, and did not call for recording of any finding, hence, rejected. 16. In ground no.7, the assessee has challenged levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D. It is consequential in nature and rejected. 17. In Ground No.8 the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty proceedings. To our mind

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

6 are general grounds of appeal, and did not call for recording of any finding, hence, rejected. 16. In ground no.7, the assessee has challenged levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D. It is consequential in nature and rejected. 17. In Ground No.8 the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty proceedings. To our mind

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

6 are general grounds of appeal, and did not call for recording of any finding, hence, rejected. 16. In ground no.7, the assessee has challenged levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D. It is consequential in nature and rejected. 17. In Ground No.8 the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty proceedings. To our mind

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

6 are general grounds of appeal, and did not call for recording of any finding, hence, rejected. 16. In ground no.7, the assessee has challenged levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D. It is consequential in nature and rejected. 17. In Ground No.8 the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty proceedings. To our mind

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

6. IT(ss)A Nos. 2005-06 -do- -do- 09/Rjt/2017 7. 25/Rjt/2017 2006-07 -do- -do- 8. 10/Rjt/2017 2007-08 -do- -do- 9. 11/Rjt/2017 2010-11 -do- -do- 10. 12/Rjt/2017 2011-12 -do- -do- 11. ITA Nos. Shri Ghanshyam -do- 13/Rjt/2014 2006-07 Gordhanbhai Jakasania 601 & 603, New Empire Apartment Saurashtra University Road, Rajkot PAN: ABWPJ 1279 R 12. 14/Rjt/2014

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

6. IT(ss)A Nos. 2005-06 -do- -do- 09/Rjt/2017 7. 25/Rjt/2017 2006-07 -do- -do- 8. 10/Rjt/2017 2007-08 -do- -do- 9. 11/Rjt/2017 2010-11 -do- -do- 10. 12/Rjt/2017 2011-12 -do- -do- 11. ITA Nos. Shri Ghanshyam -do- 13/Rjt/2014 2006-07 Gordhanbhai Jakasania 601 & 603, New Empire Apartment Saurashtra University Road, Rajkot PAN: ABWPJ 1279 R 12. 14/Rjt/2014

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

6. IT(ss)A Nos. 2005-06 -do- -do- 09/Rjt/2017 7. 25/Rjt/2017 2006-07 -do- -do- 8. 10/Rjt/2017 2007-08 -do- -do- 9. 11/Rjt/2017 2010-11 -do- -do- 10. 12/Rjt/2017 2011-12 -do- -do- 11. ITA Nos. Shri Ghanshyam -do- 13/Rjt/2014 2006-07 Gordhanbhai Jakasania 601 & 603, New Empire Apartment Saurashtra University Road, Rajkot PAN: ABWPJ 1279 R 12. 14/Rjt/2014

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

6 Sr.No. Description Amount(Rs. ) 01 02 Annexure-A-2 54,30,111 03 04 Annexure-A-3 52,26,696 Annexure-A-4 1,41,72,402 Annexure-A-8 2,61,99,141 Total 5,10,28,350 (b) At the outset, it is respectfully submitted that the appellant is engaged in the business of booking of domestic

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

68 087 77 55 982 1 73 60 002 1 93 45 151 (Increase )/Decrease in stock Opening stock By product 1 28 206 2 86 589 Work in process 5 86 46 481 6 63 78 651 Finished goods 1 11 79 254 77 63 967 Total 6 99 53 941 7 44 29 207 Closing stock By product

M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

c) it provides for warranty at 2 per cent of turnover of the company based on past experience (historical trend). The first option is unsustainable since it would tantamount to accounting for warranty expenses on cash basis, which is prohibited both under the Companies Act as well as by the Accounting Standards which require accrual concept to be followed

THE DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

c) it provides for warranty at 2 per cent of turnover of the company based on past experience (historical trend). The first option is unsustainable since it would tantamount to accounting for warranty expenses on cash basis, which is prohibited both under the Companies Act as well as by the Accounting Standards which require accrual concept to be followed

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

c) it provides for warranty at 2 per cent of turnover of the company based on past experience (historical trend). The first option is unsustainable since it would tantamount to accounting for warranty expenses on cash basis, which is prohibited both under the Companies Act as well as by the Accounting Standards which require accrual concept to be followed

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

c) it provides for warranty at 2 per cent of turnover of the company based on past experience (historical trend). The first option is unsustainable since it would tantamount to accounting for warranty expenses on cash basis, which is prohibited both under the Companies Act as well as by the Accounting Standards which require accrual concept to be followed