P THREE CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAKHATRANA vs. ITO, WARD-2, BHUJ, BHUJ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.\n5) The Ld. AO erred in charging interest u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act.\n3. That at the outset, the registree noted that this tribunal has being into the\nnotices, that the appeal filed delay for 370 days by the assessee. Therefore, the\nassessee filed an application for condonation

JITENDRABHAI BHAGVANBHAI DALVADI,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Jitendrabhai B Dalvadi 2 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That, the findings of the Ld. assessing officer and Ld. CIT(A) are not justified

JITENDRABHAI DEVAJIBHAI BODAR,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not admitted”

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

234A & B of the Act. 6.The learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), 271F of the Act” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 25.01.20214 in the prescribed Form, ITR-4 declaring total income of Rs.4,29,650/-, (including

CHAMPABEN NARESH LIMBANI,VILLAGE NANI KHAKHAR, TAL. MANDAVI, DIST. KUTCHH vs. THE ITO WARD-3, GANDHIDHAM(BHUJ-1), GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section\n115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n5 The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the\nI.T. Act, 1961.\n6 The Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty u/s 271

M/S. SHREEDHAR CONSTRUCTION ,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD- 1 (3) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 542/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S. Shreedhar Construction, The Ito, Vs. 211, Divyam Complex Airodrome Ward-1(3), Road,Jamnagar-361006 ( Gujarat) Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclfs0395R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6. That, the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 3. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assessee, is a partnership- firm

GIRISH LAHORI,GANDHIDHAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

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

penalty proceedings u/s\n271(1)(c) and 271F of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n4.That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B\nof the I.T. Act, 1961.\n5.That, the findings of the Ld. assessing officer and Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and\nare bad- in-law.\nThat, the appellant craves to add, amend

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

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of 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

KANTILAL RANCHHODBHAI NAKUM,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.551/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kantilal Ranchhodbhai Nakum Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Plot No.762, Gidc, Phase-2, बनाम/ Jamnagar, Aaykar Bhawan, Nr. Dared, Jamnagar-361 004 Vs. Chamber Of Commerce Hall, Jamnagar- Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361 001 "ायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No.: Aflpn 8072 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ravindra Manek, Ar राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under 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) [In Short, “Cit(A)”] Dated 29.07.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, On 12.05.2023. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Reopening Of Assessment U/S 148 Of The Act.

234A, 234B & 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 10. The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 11. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds during the course of appellate proceedings

BHAVESH ISHWARLAL PANCHASARA,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.95/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Bhavesh Ishwarlal बनाम Assistant Commissioner Of Panchasara Income-Tax, Circle-3(1), Rajkot /Vs. 1, Mehulnagar Main Road, Near Khodiyar Temple, Rajkot-360 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aodpp 1375 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) ha wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That the findings of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad- in-law. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter

NILESH ASHANAND THACKER,BHUJ vs. ITO WARD 4, GANDHIDHAM (BHUJ)

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, बनाम Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4, / Near-Laxmi Vekari Mahakali Gandhidham (Bhuj-2)-370 201 Vs. Shopping Mall, Jublee Circle, Bhuj, Kutch-300 001(Gujarat) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adhpt 8610R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/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. That the appellant craves leave

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

SHRI MANOJ DHANJIBHAI PANSURIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 8. That, the findings of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. 9. The appellant craves

SHRI BHARATBHUSHAN KISHANLAL GUPTA,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ITO- INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lalsaini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 269/Rjt/2019 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Bharatbhushan Kishanlal Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Gupta, (International Taxation) Prop. Of Aqua Shipping, Suit - Gandhidham – 370210 100, Grain Merchant Association Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 297, Wd – 12B, Gandhidham – 370001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afcpg3849N (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, mechanically. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the charging of interest u/s. 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act, when addition itself not sustainable.” 3. Additional ground raised by the assessee, is as follows: "The Order passed u/s

M/S WESTERN INDIA CERAMICS P. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, ground number 4 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

234A, 2348 and 234C is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad has erred in dismissing the appeal and whereby upholding the initiating penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Your applicant reserves the right in addition or alteration

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

DREAM INFRASTRUCTURE,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 220/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dream Infrastructure, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mavdi Survey No. 358, B/H. Mavdi Ward-1(1)(1), Village, Kankot Road, Mavdi, Rajkot Rajkot-360004(Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfd2565L (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/12/2025

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 4. The Learned ADDL/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in respect of charging the interest u/s. 234A, B C of the I T Act is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified

SHRI DHARMESH BHAILAL VAGHELA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-3 (1)(2),, RAJKOT

In the result, the matter is being set aside to the ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 169/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Shri Dharmesh Bhailal Vaghela vs. ITO 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- Tax effect relating to each Ground of Grounds of appeal appeal 1 That, the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without affording