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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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

TDS. The penalty confirmed is totally\nunjustified on facts was also in law and may kindly be deleted.\n5.\nThe relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are\nas follows. The assessee, before us, is an in individual and has originally filed\nreturn of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, on 30.09.2008, declaring total income

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

SHREE KARMAL KOTADA JUTH SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.328/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Karmal Kotadajuth Seva Vs. The Ito Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot. Sahakarimandali Limited. Karmal Kotada, Rajkot.

274 dated 26.09.2021 and imposed penalty under section 271B of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. SHREE KARMAL KOTDA JUTH SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has reduced the penalty from Rs.1,50,000 to Rs.1

SHRI HARILAL LAXMIDAS VAISHNANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT/DCIT(INT. TAXN.), RAJKOT

In the result, in view of the discussion above and the facts placed on record before us, we are hereby allowing the appeal of the assessee

274 r.w.s. 271AAC of the IT. Act, 1961. 8. That, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. 9. That, the appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeals. Total tax effect (see note below) Rs. 9,91,1 20/- 3. The brief facts

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S. SHIVABYAY PROJECT PVT. LTD. , GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

274/- disclosed by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added the difference of Rs. 19,49,485/- to the total income of the assessee. After having rejected the books of accounts, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed expenses amounting to Rs. 1,95,92,793/- on which TDS was not deducted by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing

M/S. SHIVABYAY PROJECT PVT. LTD. ,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

274/- disclosed by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added the difference of Rs. 19,49,485/- to the total income of the assessee. After having rejected the books of accounts, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed expenses amounting to Rs. 1,95,92,793/- on which TDS was not deducted by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing

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

section 43(5). It is immaterial whether transaction is carried out at the recognized stock exchange or not. Even the circular of CBDT cited in the assessment order states that once it is established that the assessee has entered in the transaction of the commodity that they deal the other technical details have no material impact. Hence, this reasoning

SHRI GAJRAJ NATUBHA JETHVA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-3 (2), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 426/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Gajraj Natubha Jethva Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward – Sikka Patiya, Moti Khavadi, 3(2), Taranjali Building, Nr. Amber Jamnagar-361140 Cinema, Pt. Nehru Marg, Hospital Road Jamnagar - 361140 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akypj9388E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt. Astha Maniyar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 20.10.2023, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, on 29.12.2018. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows