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

133(6)/131 of the Act because all the assessments have been carried out in a haste manner. During assessment proceedings, when the AO issued notices to the assessee calling for details and documents then the assessee has submitted his reply at the fag-end of 11.03.2014 and assessment was framed after 12 days on 24.03.2014,Vide ITA No.171/RJT/2015

SUNIL KUMAR,GANDHIDHAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

133(6) of the Act from the bank, the\nAO passed an order under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 25/03/2022\nwherein an addition of Rs. 47, 77,199/- was made to the income of the appellant\nas unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. Penalty proceedings\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act were

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

u/s 133(6)/131 of the Act because all the\nassessments have been carried out in a haste manner. During assessment\nproceedings, when the AO issued notices to the assessee calling for details and\ndocuments then the assessee has submitted his reply at the fag-end of\n11.03.2014 and assessment was framed after 12 days on 24.03.2014,Vide ITA\nNo.171/RJT/2015

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

u/s 133(6)/131 of the Act because all the\nassessments have been carried out in a haste manner. During assessment\nproceedings, when the AO issued notices to the assessee calling for details and\ndocuments then the assessee has submitted his reply at the fag-end of\n11.03.2014 and assessment was framed after 12 days on 24.03.2014,Vide ITA\nNo.171/RJT/2015

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

section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act and some of the\nassessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act').The main ground of appeal by\nthe department (Revenue) is pertaining to assailing and deletion of 70% of additions\nmade on account

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

section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act and some of the\nassessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act').The main ground of appeal by\nthe department (Revenue) is pertaining to assailing and deletion of 70% of additions\nmade on account

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

section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act and some of the\nassessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act').The main ground of appeal by\nthe department (Revenue) is pertaining to assailing and deletion of 70% of additions\nmade on account

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

u/s 133(6)/131 of the Act because all the\nassessments have been carried out in a haste manner. During assessment\nproceedings, when the AO issued notices to the assessee calling for details and\ndocuments then the assessee has submitted his reply at the fag-end of\n11.03.2014 and assessment was framed after 12 days on 24.03.2014, Vide ITA\nNo.171/RJT/2015

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

u/s 133(6)/131 of the Act because all the\nassessments have been carried out in a haste manner. During assessment\nproceedings, when the AO issued notices to the assessee calling for details and\ndocuments then the assessee has submitted his reply at the fag-end of\n11.03.2014 and assessment was framed after 12 days on 24.03.2014,Vide ITA\nNo.171/RJT/2015

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

u/s 133(6)/131 of the Act because all the\nassessments have been carried out in a haste manner. During assessment\nproceedings, when the AO issued notices to the assessee calling for details and\ndocuments then the assessee has submitted his reply at the fag-end of\n11.03.2014 and assessment was framed after 12 days on 24.03.2014,Vide ITA\nNo.171/RJT/2015

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

penalty and charged interest. Assessment for\nA.Ys. 2007-08 to 2012-13 are u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961. The assessment for\nsearch related A.Y.2013-14 is u/s.143(3). The Ld assessing officer has used the term\n‘unexplained credit' but not specified the specific section.\n5. Proceedings before Ld.CIT(A):\na. Before Ld.CIT(A), the assessee raised multiple

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 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

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

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

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