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)

4) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 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

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

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

section 263 of the Act." ii. On April 28, 2011, the assessee acquired shares of Kyra Landscapes Limited (formerly known as Aricent Infra Limited) via an off-market transaction facilitated by a brokerage firm. No monetary payment was rendered by the assessee towards the acquisition of the shares as the purchase was financed through the credit balance maintained/created with

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

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

section 263 of the Act." ii. On April 28, 2011, the assessee acquired shares of Kyra Landscapes Limited (formerly known as Aricent Infra Limited) via an off-market transaction facilitated by a brokerage firm. No monetary payment was rendered by the assessee towards the acquisition of the shares as the purchase was financed through the credit balance maintained/created with

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

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

section 263 of the Act." ii. On April 28, 2011, the assessee acquired shares of Kyra Landscapes Limited (formerly known as Aricent Infra Limited) via an off-market transaction facilitated by a brokerage firm. No monetary payment was rendered by the assessee towards the acquisition of the shares as the purchase was financed through the credit balance maintained/created with

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

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

section 263 of the Act." ii. On April 28, 2011, the assessee acquired shares of Kyra Landscapes Limited (formerly known as Aricent Infra Limited) via an off-market transaction facilitated by a brokerage firm. No monetary payment was rendered by the assessee towards the acquisition of the shares as the purchase was financed through the credit balance maintained/created with

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)

4 to 8 of the order of the learned PCIT. 7. However, the Ld.PCIT having gone through the reply of the assessee observed the common pattern in penny stock transactions, as follows: (i). Purchase of stock at rock bottom price generally in physical form. (ii). No Financial credibility of the company, whose shares are purchased by the Investors. (iii) Bell

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

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,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

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 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

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

Appeals are dismissed, Assessee's appeals are partly allowed

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

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