DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. JAGJIVAN RANCHHODBHAI SAKHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue, are dismissed

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

Capital Gain of Rs. 34,95,274/-, Other income of Rs. 66,940/- and deduction as per Chapter VI-A of Rs. 1,91,000/-. On 27-09-2021, the income of the assessee has been assessed at Rs. 7,29,10,595/-. A Search, Seizure and Survey action was carried out by the office of DDIT (Inv.), Unit

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI JAGJIVAN RANCHHODBHAI SAKHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue, are dismissed

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

Capital Gain of Rs. 34,95,274/-, Other income of Rs. 66,940/- and deduction as per Chapter VI-A of Rs. 1,91,000/-. On 27-09-2021, the income of the assessee has been assessed at Rs. 7,29,10,595/-. A Search, Seizure and Survey action was carried out by the office of DDIT (Inv.), Unit

SMT. INDUMATIBEN G. PARMAR,,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed on merits

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 39/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the I T Act is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law.” 3. As per Ground No.1, the assessee seeks to challenge the jurisdiction assumed under s.147 of the Act, the aforesaid ground is dismissed and not pressed. 4. Ground Nos. 2 to 6 concerns addition of Rs.3,69,000/- by applying Section

LATE SHRI TULSIBHAI LIMBABHAI PARSANA, L/R SHRI HARIBHAI T. PARSANA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the separate assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gain in regard to the sale of land at Rs. 1,43,63,312/- as against Rs. 52,07,005/- as worked out by the assessee in the return of income. Penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) was also initiated by the Ld. AO. Such penalty proceeding was ultimately finalized by the concerned officer upon levying penalty

SHRI LAKHABHAI LIMBABHAI PARSANA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the separate assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gain in regard to the sale of land at Rs. 1,43,63,312/- as against Rs. 52,07,005/- as worked out by the assessee in the return of income. Penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) was also initiated by the Ld. AO. Such penalty proceeding was ultimately finalized by the concerned officer upon levying penalty

SHRI MAGANLAL LIMBABHAI PARSANA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the separate assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gain in regard to the sale of land at Rs. 1,43,63,312/- as against Rs. 52,07,005/- as worked out by the assessee in the return of income. Penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) was also initiated by the Ld. AO. Such penalty proceeding was ultimately finalized by the concerned officer upon levying penalty

SMT. HANSABEN MADHUKANT PANDYA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the separate assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gain in regard to the sale of land at Rs. 1,43,63,312/- as against Rs. 52,07,005/- as worked out by the assessee in the return of income. Penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) was also initiated by the Ld. AO. Such penalty proceeding was ultimately finalized by the concerned officer upon levying penalty

ASHOK SHANKARNARAYAN HEBBAR,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

274 r.w.s. 271A of the act on 22nd Feb, 2016 to explain why not the penalty u/s. 271A should be imposed. The assessee has not made any compliance. Therefore, the assessing officer has imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- as the assessee has failed to keep or maintain books of account and documents as required u/s. 44AA

ASHOK SHANKARNARAYAN HEBBAR,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

274 r.w.s. 271A of the act on 22nd Feb, 2016 to explain why not the penalty u/s. 271A should be imposed. The assessee has not made any compliance. Therefore, the assessing officer has imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- as the assessee has failed to keep or maintain books of account and documents as required u/s. 44AA