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,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 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

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)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “The grounds of appeal mentioned herein under are without prejudice to each other. 1.0 Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-l, Rajkot has erred in law in confirming the disallowance

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)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “The grounds of appeal mentioned herein under are without prejudice to each other. 1.0 Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-l, Rajkot has erred in law in confirming the disallowance

SHRI NAVAVAGHNIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,AMRELI vs. THE DCIT/ACIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANAGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 80P of Rs. 3,52,877/-. The Return of Income filed by the assessee was processed by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru vide Intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 11.01.2021, thereby denying the benefit of claim of deduction u/s. 80P for the reason that the Return of Income was not filed within the due date prescribed

M/S. FAVOURITE EXPORTS,VERAVAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed, आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 162/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2015-2016 M/S. Favourite Exports, I.T.O., Gidc Estate, Vs. Ward-4, Somnath Road, Veraval. Veraval.

disallowed by virtue of the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act on the reasoning that the payment was not made within the time specified under the relevant Act in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 20-09-2017. As per the AO, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income

DINESHCHANDRA N. SHAH,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5),, JAMNAGAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Disallowance of the expenses for accounting charges and other expenses amounting to Rs. 24,612/- respectively against the interest income received from the partnership firm. The AO in the assessment order dated 20th November 2015 initiated the 4. penalty proceedings by issuing notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274

M/S. GUPTA GLOBAL EXIM PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiating the penalty which was confirmed at Rs. 6,71,930/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who also confirmed the order of the AO. ITA Nos. 215/Rjt/15, 254 & 255/Rjt/14[M/s. Gupta Global

ATMAN RAJNIKANT BHESDADIYA L/R. LATE SHRI RAJNIKANT LAVJIBHAI BHEDADIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

274 r.w.s. 271AAB that the assessee has inflated his agricultural income, which would have been otherwise offered under any other head of income. In response, the assessee replied that the addition of Rs.46,957/- was made on account of estimation of yield of cotton crops grown during that period, which by no means can be termed as undisclosed income. There

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

section 142(1) of the Act and against these notices, the assessee has submitted reply with documentary evidences. The AO has also issued two show cause notices during the assessment proceedings, and against these notices, the assessee submitted its reply before the AO along with documentary evidences. Therefore, allegation of the learned PCIT that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing

ABHAY HARGOVINDBHAI PATEL,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMNAGAR

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

274 of the I.T. Act 1961 was also initiated for non-\ncompliance of notices issued u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act. During the assessment\nproceedings, the information u/s 133(6) from bank/banks were called for\nregarding bank accounts held by the assessee. On perusal of information received\nfrom bank, it was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee

M/S CHANDRAKANT H. KAKKAD,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

274 (Gauhati) and fatimabai (2010) 32(I)ITCL 97 (Karnataka-HC) Wherein it was held inter-alia that the assessee can fulfill the requirement of Section 54 of Act up to the extended time limit for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(4) of the Act. In this regard I find that the Mumbai High Court, recently in case

SHRI BHIMGRAD SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,BHINGRAD, TAL. LATHI, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC),, BANGALORE-560500

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 312 /Rjt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Dhamel Seva Sahkari Vs. The Asstt. Director Of Mandali Ltd. Income Tax (Cpc) Amreli, Post Bag No. 2, Electronic Gujarat – 365220 City Post Office, Bangalore - 560500 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkas8446E (Assessee) (Respondent)

disallowed the assessee's claim of deduction by invoking the provisions of section 80AC of the Act. The due date for furnishing return of income as per section 139(1) was subject to extended period provided under sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Act. The action of the CPC and such an adjustment made

SHREE DAMNAGAR SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED ,AT DAMNAGAR, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 312 /Rjt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Dhamel Seva Sahkari Vs. The Asstt. Director Of Mandali Ltd. Income Tax (Cpc) Amreli, Post Bag No. 2, Electronic Gujarat – 365220 City Post Office, Bangalore - 560500 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkas8446E (Assessee) (Respondent)

disallowed the assessee's claim of deduction by invoking the provisions of section 80AC of the Act. The due date for furnishing return of income as per section 139(1) was subject to extended period provided under sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Act. The action of the CPC and such an adjustment made