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)

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of Arm’s Length Pricing u/s. 92CA of the Act. The Ld. TPO determined the Arm’s Length Price of the specified domestic transactions and recommended an upward adjustment of Rs. 1,89,74,894/- vide order dated 31-10-2017. After receipt of the TPO’s order, the Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment

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

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

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

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

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)

ii) the Assessing Officer. (3) The Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment on the basis of the draft order, if- I.T.A No. 269/Rjt/2019 A.Y. 2017-18 13 Bharatbhushan Kishanlal Gupta vs. ITO-International Taxation (a) the assessee intimates to the Assessing Officer the acceptance of the variation; or (b) no objections are received within the period specified in sub-section

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

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

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

HANSA JITENDRA HARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

ii) The AO has to verify the mode of transactions (Physical/ online through stock exchange) made by the assessee at the time of purchase and sale of shares of Global Secur. (iii) Dematerialization of the share purchased by the assessee. (iv) Debit and credit of shares in the Demat account of the assessee with reference to date of purchase