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

2) Deemed rent of more than one properties, reflected in the Balance\nSheet Rs.1,80,000/-\n(3) Disallowance of payment of commission to Shri Rajesh Bhatt :\nRs.3,00,000/-\n9.\nIn order to levy penalty, u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, on the above three\nitems, the assessing officer issued, show cause notice dated 05.07.2019 to the\nassessee

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 2 of the Securities Securities Contract (Regulation) Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of Act, 1956 (42 of 1956) carried out 1956) in a recognized stock exchange (e) An eligible transaction in respect of Assessee has entered into transaction trading on commodity derivatives through the recognized association i.e. carried out in a recognized MCX which was notified later

M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the LT. Act, 1961. (3). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of interest on delayed payment of TDS amounting to Rs. 57,298/-. (4). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition amounting to Rs. 25,35,850/- on account of difference in receipts

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

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 ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

274 ITR 534(Guj) is applicable to the facts of this case and respectfully following the same I am of the considered view that it is reasonable to estimate the profit earned out of such unrecorded financial transactions at Rs. 3,00,000/-. In the circumstances, the additions based on Annx-A2,A3,A4,A8 amounting to Rs.5

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

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

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,RAJKOT 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 Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (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 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 : 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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty amounting to Rs. 18,390/- under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and is a partner in a partnership firm namely

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.54-56/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2010-11 D.C.I.T, M/S.Backbone Construction Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Ekta House, 2-Jalaram, Rajkot University Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aaccb1167C

2. On account of 60,00,000/- Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) 3. On account of 7,26,60,205/- Disallowance out of bogus claim of Soil expenses and non- deduction of TDS u/s.40(a)(ia) ITA nos.54-56/Rjt/2017 Asstt. Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 3 4. On account of Bogus 3,36,44,675/- claim of transport expenses

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.54-56/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2010-11 D.C.I.T, M/S.Backbone Construction Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Ekta House, 2-Jalaram, Rajkot University Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aaccb1167C

2. On account of 60,00,000/- Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) 3. On account of 7,26,60,205/- Disallowance out of bogus claim of Soil expenses and non- deduction of TDS u/s.40(a)(ia) ITA nos.54-56/Rjt/2017 Asstt. Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 3 4. On account of Bogus 3,36,44,675/- claim of transport expenses

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.54-56/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2010-11 D.C.I.T, M/S.Backbone Construction Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Ekta House, 2-Jalaram, Rajkot University Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aaccb1167C

2. On account of 60,00,000/- Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) 3. On account of 7,26,60,205/- Disallowance out of bogus claim of Soil expenses and non- deduction of TDS u/s.40(a)(ia) ITA nos.54-56/Rjt/2017 Asstt. Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 3 4. On account of Bogus 3,36,44,675/- claim of transport expenses

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

SHRI KARAMASHIBHAI G. AGHARA,MORBI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee in the case of Shri Bharatbhai T

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowances with which we are not presently concerned with. The Assessing Officer however initiated penalty proceedings under s.271AAA of the Act on the additional income declared amounting to Rs.2,61,13,250/- in pursuance of search. Subsequently, on receiving objections from the assessee, the Assessing Officer vide corrigendum dated 03/07/2015 to the assessment order, modified the penalty section and substituted