SHRI KANJIBHAI B. RANGANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

U/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 5,51,702/- without considering that there is no adequate time and opportunity although the assessee specifically requested for the same. The penalty needs deletion. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not bringing any cogent material justifying levy of penalty. The penalty needs deletion. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

JAGANI VINODRAI GOPALDAS (HUF),RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (4),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 59/Rjt/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Jagani Vinodrai Gopaldas Huf, Income-Tax Officer, 62 – Suraj Appartment, Vs. Ward-1(2)(4), No.1 Shroff Road, Rajkot. Opp. Church, Nfac, Delhi Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaahj9710N

capital gain of Rs. 1,90,574/- as business income of the assessee by adding to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

URVASHI GIRISHBHAI LAL,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. 6. The assessee carves to add, amend, alter and delete any of the above ground of appeals.” 3. Brief facts, as discernible from the orders of lower authorities are that during

MAHENDRAKUMAR BHANJIBHAI CHHANIYARA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (2) (1) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

u/s\n144 of the IT Act, is against the principal of natural justice and therefore the\nheavy addition made of Rs. 66,78,350/- as short term capital gain is required\nto be deleted.\n06. That the appellant has purchased the land under question on 06/08/2010\nand sold on 19/06/2015 which is Long term capital gain, however without\nmaking proper

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 263 of the Act, and directed the assessing officer to verify the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts, which have been left out, during the course of original assessment proceedings. Accordingly, assessing officer made addition of peak credit in individual bank accounts. However, on further appeal by assessee, before

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

u/s 263 of the Act, and directed the assessing officer to verify the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts, which have been left out, during the course of original assessment proceedings. Accordingly, assessing officer made addition of peak credit in individual bank accounts. However, on further appeal by assessee, before

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is initiated\nfor concealing the particulars of income.\"\n3.12.2. Same finding has been given by the A.O. for the other assessment years in all\nthe case of above mentioned appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the\nappellant filed detailed submission against the additions made. The appellant\ncontended that they are engaged in the business

SHRI SUBIR YUDHISTHIR DAS,BELAPUR, THANE (MAHARASTRA) vs. THE CIT(A)-13, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1) © of the Act without appreciating the fact that the appellant denies his liability to the same. 7. During the course of Assessment the appellant has submitted all the documents related to his status of NRI and sources of Income, the Investment was made in shares out of Appellant Salary Income which was earned

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

u/s 263 of the Act, and directed the\nassessing officer to verify the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts, which have\nbeen left out, during the course of original assessment proceedings. Accordingly,\nassessing officer made addition of peak credit in individual bank accounts. However, on\nfurther appeal by assessee, before

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is bad in law.\n2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in not annulling the\nreassessment on the ground that the reopening was mechanical and without\nindependent application of mind.\n3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

u/s 263 of the Act, and directed the\nassessing officer to verify the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts, which have\nbeen left out, during the course of original assessment proceedings. Accordingly,\nassessing officer made addition of peak credit in individual bank accounts. However, on\nfurther appeal by assessee, before

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

u/s 263 of the Act, and directed the\nassessing officer to verify the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts, which have\nbeen left out, during the course of original assessment proceedings. Accordingly,\nassessing officer made addition of peak credit in individual bank accounts. However, on\nfurther appeal by assessee, before

BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT

u/s 263 of the Act, and directed the\nassessing officer to verify the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts, which have\nbeen left out, during the course of original assessment proceedings. Accordingly,\nassessing officer made addition of peak credit in individual bank accounts. However, on\nfurther appeal by assessee, before

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT vs. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,, RAJKOT

u/s 263 of the Act, and directed the\nassessing officer to verify the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts, which have\nbeen left out, during the course of original assessment proceedings. Accordingly,\nassessing officer made addition of peak credit in individual bank accounts. However, on\nfurther appeal by assessee, before

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

u/s 263 of the Act, and directed the\nassessing officer to verify the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts, which have\nbeen left out, during the course of original assessment proceedings. Accordingly,\nassessing officer made addition of peak credit in individual bank accounts. However, on\nfurther appeal by assessee, before

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

u/s 263 of the Act, and directed the\nassessing officer to verify the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts, which have\nbeen left out, during the course of original assessment proceedings. Accordingly,\nassessing officer made addition of peak credit in individual bank accounts. However, on\nfurther appeal by assessee, before

SHRI RAMA MEPA ODEDARA,PORBANDAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, PORBANDAR

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us, The Counsel For The Assessee Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay & Argued That The Reason For Delay In Filing Appeal Before Itat Was That The Assessee Was Suffering From Spinal Injury & Was Advised Complete Bed Rest By The Doctors. In Support Of The Above Contention, The Assessee Also Filed Medical Certificate With Respect To The Injury Suffered

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) - - are not justified and are bad-in-law. 5. The assessee craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeals. Total tax effect (see note below) Rs. 18,28,550/- Condonation of Delay

DILIP KANTILAL KUBAVAT,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WD 2(3), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.522/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2016-17 Dilip Kantilal Kubavat Ito बनाम/ Prop. Vijay Dairy Farm, Ward 2 (3), Vs Near Ramdhun S V P Road, Porbandar 360575 Porbandar - 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azfpk8009B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /10/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.03.2025, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not To Consider The Basic Fact That The Assessee Has Gifted The Property To His Sister In Law (Younger Brother'S Wife) That Is, To A Relative For A Consideration Dilip Kantilal Kubavat

penalty notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2016-17 dated 29.06.2025 wherein it was mentioned "you had preferred appeal which has been disposed of by the 1st appellate authority, i.e. CIT(A)." On perusal of this notice, the assessee immediately approached the consultant. Therefore, in this process, the delay of 80 days has occurred, which may kindly