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

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, relates to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and appeal

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15) Pankaj C Lodhiya 2. The assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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

184/-, in respect of various additions. Thereafter in view of order of\nthe Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot, in order no. ITA No.160\n&161/Rjt/2018 and 92 & 93/RJV2018, dated 09.10.2018, the following\nadditions were confirmed, on which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, was\nproposed to levy by the assessing officer:\n(1) Income earned

SHRI KUTCH VISA OSWAL JAIN DERAWASI SANGH BIDADA,MANDVI vs. THE ITO EXEMPTION, WARD (1), RAJKOT., RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 160/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Kutch Visa Oswal Jain Derawasi The Ito Exemption, Ward (1), Vs. Sangh Bidada, P.O. Bidada, Rajkot. New Aayakar Bhavan, Race Mandvi 370435 Course Ring Road, Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts0457L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 11(2) of Rs. 15,00,0 00 shall be allowed to the assessee. 4. The assessee filed an appeal against the order dated 24-11-2019 on application u/s. 154 of rectification whereby, the claim of the assessee was disallowed, before the Ld. CIT(A) on dated 07-12-2019. The Ld. CIT(A) has issued six notices

BHAVESH K. KOTHARI,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.50/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-2006

5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming an amount of Rs.20,184/- in respect of interest on housing loans. The same needs deletion. 6.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming an amount of Rs.89,346/- in respect of incentive bonus. The same needs deletion

PRAVINBHAI MOHANBHAI VADI,JAMNAGAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.102/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Vadi The Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम Flat No.1, Prabhudeep Apartment Income Tax, Jamanagar. Air Force-2 Road Vs. Jamnagar. Pan : Agzpv6946P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

disallowed by the assessing officer, which is Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Vadi ITA No.102 /RJT/2025 5 acceptable. The AO has examined all the documentary evidences submitted by the assessee and took a plausible view and added 25% of the bogus purchases. Therefore, such assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, therefore, the jurisdiction exercised

M/S. JAI MAA HIRAL ENTERPRISE,KHAMBHALIYA vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

5 M/s. Jai Maa Hiral Enterprise vs. Pr. CIT Jamnagar same before due date (for filing of Return of Income u/s 139) under section 43B. Further, as per CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17/12/2015, the employee's contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(l)(va), the provisions of section

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

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. ANUKUL CONSTRUCTION CO.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

184/- and restricted the same to the extent of profit impeded thereon i.e. Rs.1,30,928/-. The CIT(A) also sustained the disallowance to the extent of Rs.1,08,880/- in respect of no charge interest on loan and advances given to its partners. The Assessing Officer subsequently initiated penalty proceedings under section

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara | बनाम Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Vs. Pan: Aampl 3903 F Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15) Pankaj C Lodhiya 2. The assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

GRENIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED,WANKANER-MORBI vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1) RKT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

5). The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer did not\nbring on record any independent material or cogent evidence to disprove the\nassessee's explanation or to demonstrate that the deposits were not from debtors,\nthereby rendering the addition arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to settled law.\n(6). The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred

ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GRENIC TILES PVT LTD, MORBI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

5). The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer did not\nbring on record any independent material or cogent evidence to disprove the\nassessee's explanation or to demonstrate that the deposits were not from debtors,\nthereby rendering the addition arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to settled law.\n(6). The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred