SHRI VIVEK PRAVINCHANDRA PALA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (2), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 14-03-2020 that the assessee realised that the appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) was omitted to be filed. Further, due to Covid 19 pandemic situation, there was a delay of 215 days in filing the appeal, which was not intentional and due to circumstances beyond

SHRI RAHIM UMARBHAI RAVKARDA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That, the findings of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. 6. That appellant craves

SHRI SUBHAS HANSARAJ NANDU,BHACHAU-KUTCH vs. THE ACIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Subhas Hansaraj Nandu, V Acit, Gandhidham Opp. Shambhu Maharaj Circle, S Bunglow, Kutch . Bhachau, Gujarat – 370140 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afrpn0720J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 08.11.2023, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Act, on 20.12.2016. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

BALVANTRAI AMRUTBHAI VYAS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1)(1), RAJKOT., RAJKOT

Appeal is dismissed as “not pressed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act was received by my tax consultant on his e-mail id i.e. jsshukla_2008@yahoo.com, wherein it was Page 2 of 5 Dff Balvantrai M. Vyas mentioned that the impugned order u/s 250 of the Act was passed and hence I was show caused as to why penalty should not be levied in my case. That

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

133(6) were either unserved or replied to by the\nassessee itself.\n(3) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting self-generated records such as cash book,\nVAT and excise returns, and in ignoring the abnormal pattern of cash flow and\ndeposits immediately preceding demonetization, thereby overlooking material\nfindings recorded by the Assessing Officer.\n(4) The order

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

133(6) were either unserved or replied to by the\nassessee itself.\n(3) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting self-generated records such as cash book,\nVAT and excise returns, and in ignoring the abnormal pattern of cash flow and\ndeposits immediately preceding demonetization, thereby overlooking material\nfindings recorded by the Assessing Officer.\n(4) The order