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

TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n11\nH\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions may be good but not for penalty. The\nassessee

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

TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n11\nH\n==End of OCR for page 11==\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions

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

TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n11\nH\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions may be good but not for penalty. The\nassessee

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

TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n11\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions may be good but not for penalty. The\nassessee has relied on the various judgements. However, ld CIT(A) rejected the\nabove contention

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

TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n\n11\n\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions may be good but not for penalty. The\nassessee has relied on the various judgements. However, ld CIT(A) rejected the\nabove contention

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS deducted etc. As far as the issue of retraction of statements by impugned parties and their subsequent filing of sworn affidavits alleging coercion and duress is concerned, i! is seen that the appellant has attempted to introduce the impugned sworn affidavits as additional evidences Apropos, to the discussions made m the preceding paras, it has been held'that

PARSHWA PRINTPACK PVT. LTD.,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS deducted etc. As far as the issue of retraction of statements by impugned parties and their subsequent filing of sworn affidavits alleging coercion and duress is concerned, i! is seen that the appellant has attempted to introduce the impugned sworn affidavits as additional evidences Apropos, to the discussions made m the preceding paras, it has been held'that

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS deducted etc. As far as the issue of retraction of statements by impugned parties and their subsequent filing of sworn affidavits alleging coercion and duress is concerned, i! is seen that the appellant has attempted to introduce the impugned sworn affidavits as additional evidences Apropos, to the discussions made m the preceding paras, it has been held'that

VALJI HARJI HIRANI,BHUJ vs. ITO.(INT.TXN), GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.119/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) Valji Harji Hirani Vs. Ito, (Int. Txn) Meghpar, Nr. Dena Bank, Gandhidham (Gujarat) – 370201 Bhuj (Gujarat) - 370430 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agjph6338K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 05/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp-2), Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 18.01.2024. (Ita 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows: 1. The Learned Drp Panel Has Erroneously Applied Section 69 By Focusing On The Conditions Outlined In Section 69 Without Duly Considering The Applicant'S Submission Regarding The Source Of The Investment. It Is Emphasized That The Nre Fdrs In Question Are From Previous Years & Have Been Made From After Tax Income Earned Abroad, As Clearly Stated In The Submission. The Panel Has Failed To Acknowledge The Satisfactory Explanation Provided By The Assessee Regarding The Source Of Acquisition Of The Investment. Shri Leuva Patel Kelavani Mandal

2 of 10 Shri Leuva Patel Kelavani Mandal about the authenticity of the FD interest and the source of funds used for the investment in the draft assessment order. The officer proposed treating the investment as unexplained under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act and taxing it at the applicable rates under Section 115BBE, despite the evidence provided