HANDYTANKERS K/S AGENT OF F.B. MAERSK TANKERS C/O ATLANTIC SHIPPING PVT. LTD.,,SIKKA vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any foreign company.' 8. If the above provisions of reference to the DRP are to be applied in the context of orders passed under section 172(4), in terms of the provisions of Section 144(1), it is ITA Nos. 756 of 2014, 276 of 2015 & 91/Rjt/2016

LR2 MANAGEMENT K/S AGENT OF PRINCIPAL FREIGHT BENEFICIARY, INTEROCEAN SHIPPING (I) PVT. LTD.,,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTER. TAXA.),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any foreign company.' 8. If the above provisions of reference to the DRP are to be applied in the context of orders passed under section 172(4), in terms of the provisions of Section 144(1), it is ITA Nos. 756 of 2014, 276 of 2015 & 91/Rjt/2016

LR2 MANAGEMENT K/S (AS FOREIGN COMMR. MANAGER/AGENT OF PRINCIPAL FREIGHT BENEFICIARY, TORM A/S MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE P. LTD.,SIKKA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTER. TAXA.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any foreign company.' 8. If the above provisions of reference to the DRP are to be applied in the context of orders passed under section 172(4), in terms of the provisions of Section 144(1), it is ITA Nos. 756 of 2014, 276 of 2015 & 91/Rjt/2016

M/S. KANDLA ENERGY AND CHEMICALS LTD.,VILLAGE DEVALIYA, TAL. ANJAR(KUTCH) vs. ADD. CIT, GANDHIDHAM RANGE,, GANDHIDHAM(KUTCH)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

153, pass the assessment order under sub-section (3) within one month from the end of the month in which,- (a) the acceptance is received ; or (b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. (5) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall, in a case where any objection is received under sub-section (2), issue such directions

SHREE MEENAWALA CASTING,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKTO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment 14[or fresh order under section 92CA, as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a period of three months from the end of the month in which order under section 250 or section 254 or section

BHANUBEN MANSUKHLAL KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on a total income of Rs. 4,05,220/-.” From the above assessment order, which is written in 10 lines, it is clear that assessing officer has not conducted any enquiry during the assessment proceedings. 16. Apart from this, learned DR for the revenue, filed the common written submission

JAYESH KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on a total income of Rs. 4,05,220/-.” From the above assessment order, which is written in 10 lines, it is clear that assessing officer has not conducted any enquiry during the assessment proceedings. 16. Apart from this, learned DR for the revenue, filed the common written submission

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on a total income of Rs. 4,05,220/-.” From the above assessment order, which is written in 10 lines, it is clear that assessing officer has not conducted any enquiry during the assessment proceedings. 16. Apart from this, learned DR for the revenue, filed the common written submission

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on a total income of Rs. 4,05,220/-.” From the above assessment order, which is written in 10 lines, it is clear that assessing officer has not conducted any enquiry during the assessment proceedings. 16. Apart from this, learned DR for the revenue, filed the common written submission

SHRI BHARATBHUSHAN KISHANLAL GUPTA,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ITO- INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lalsaini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 269/Rjt/2019 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Bharatbhushan Kishanlal Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Gupta, (International Taxation) Prop. Of Aqua Shipping, Suit - Gandhidham – 370210 100, Grain Merchant Association Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 297, Wd – 12B, Gandhidham – 370001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afcpg3849N (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

153 [or section 153B], pass the assessment order under sub-section (3) within one month from the end of the month in which,- (a) the acceptance is received; or (b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. (5) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall, in a case where any objection is received under sub-section (2), issue

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

price with customer inclusive of all other add-on services provided by him) in various impounded documents/data as well as averments made by sales employee in his statement, estimation of unaccounted receipts at Rs. 30.22 crores as well as total receipts at Rs. 118.31 crores from entire project, i.e., 509 flats is strongly objected. 15. It is also submitted that

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT LTD,RAJOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

price with\ncustomer inclusive of all other add-on services provided by him) in various impounded\ndocuments/data as well as averments made by sales employee in his statement,\nestimation of unaccounted receipts at Rs.30.22 crores as well as total receipts at Rs.\n118.31 crores from entire project, i.e., 509 flats is strongly objected.\n\n15. It is also submitted that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SIX TWENTY REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

price with\ncustomer inclusive of all other add-on services provided by him) in various impounded\ndocuments/data as well as averments made by sales employee in his statement,\nestimation of unaccounted receipts at Rs.30.22 crores as well as total receipts at Rs.\n118.31 crores from entire project, i.e., 509 flats is strongly objected.\n\n15. It is also submitted that

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

price with\ncustomer inclusive of all other add-on services provided by him) in various impounded\ndocuments/data as well as averments made by sales employee in his statement,\nestimation of unaccounted receipts at Rs.30.22 crores as well as total receipts at Rs.\n118.31 crores from entire project, i.e., 509 flats is strongly objected.\n\n15. It is also submitted that

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

price which is mentioned in the pricelist itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

price which is mentioned in the pricelist itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

price which is mentioned in the pricelist itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

price for the levy of excise\nduty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the\nprice which is mentioned in the pricelist itself could be the subject matter of\ncross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to\npresuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination\nand make