ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 1534 of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur v. Assistant Commissioner of Income

M/S OM KIRTI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roy)

disallowance of interest payment of Rs. 14,40,475 to 1C1CI bank made by the A.O. by treating it as personal expenditure. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,28,990/- made by the assessing officer by way of unexplained investment in jewellery. 5.The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

3) of the Act. The provision of section 153 of the Act as applicable to the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2009-10 reads under: 153. 32[(1) No order of assessment 33 shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of— (a ) two years from the end of the assessment year

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

3) of the Act. The provision of section 153 of the Act as applicable to the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2009-10 reads under: 153. 32[(1) No order of assessment 33 shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of— (a ) two years from the end of the assessment year

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

3) of the Act. The provision of section 153 of the Act as applicable to the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2009-10 reads under: 153. 32[(1) No order of assessment 33 shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of— (a ) two years from the end of the assessment year

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

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

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

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

SHRI SHAMJIBHAI SADHABHAI KANGAD,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , RAJKOT

disallowances as per various provisions of the Income-tax Act for\nincurring cash expenses and violation of other provisions also needs to be\nconsidered before arriving at the value of real income earned from the uncounted\nShri Shamjibhai Shadabhai Kangad & Ors.\nIT(SS)A Nso.11 to 23/RJT/2022 and Ors. (AYs: 2011-12 to 2018-19 & Ors..)\n22\ntransactions recorded

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

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground of\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars, whereas the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing\nOfficer on the ground of concealment of particulars. It is by now well settled that while\nissuing a notice under section

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

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground of\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars, whereas the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing\nOfficer on the ground of concealment of particulars. It is by now well settled that while\nissuing a notice under section

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

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground of\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars, whereas the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing\nOfficer on the ground of concealment of particulars. It is by now well settled that while\nissuing a notice under section

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

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground of\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars, whereas the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing\nOfficer on the ground of concealment of particulars. It is by now well settled that while\nissuing a notice under section

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

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground of\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars, whereas the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing\nOfficer on the ground of concealment of particulars. It is by now well settled that while\nissuing a notice under section

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

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground of\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars, whereas the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing\nOfficer on the ground of concealment of particulars. It is by now well settled that while\nissuing a notice under section

FRIENDS BULK HANDLERS LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

3) r.w.s.153(1)(b) pursuant to aforesaid search was finalized on 28-03-2014 determining total income at Rs. 5,08,546/- i.e. same income as declared by the assessee in the return of income. The assessee submitted that the original assessment was not pending when the I.T.A Nos. 153 & 154/Rjt/2016 A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 Page No 4 Friends

FRIENDS BULK HANDLERS LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

3) r.w.s.153(1)(b) pursuant to aforesaid search was finalized on 28-03-2014 determining total income at Rs. 5,08,546/- i.e. same income as declared by the assessee in the return of income. The assessee submitted that the original assessment was not pending when the I.T.A Nos. 153 & 154/Rjt/2016 A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 Page No 4 Friends