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

SHRI RAHENDRASINH P. JADEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Itano.562/Rjt/2014 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Shri Rahendrasinh P. Jadeja, D.C.I.T, Pradhuman Villa, Vs. Central Circle-2, Opp. Neel Da Dhaba, Rajkot. Kalawad Road, Rajkot. Pan: Abopj5431H

u/s 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Asstt. Year 2008-09 4 Act is compensatory in nature. Therefore he should be given credit with effect from the day of the seizure of cash. 5. However, the ''Ld.CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the cash seized as a result of the search can be appropriated against

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.” 3

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

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 280/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Mahendrakumar Bhanjibhai Income Tax Officer, Chaniyara, Gaushala Plot, Kolki बनाम Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Rajkot, Kolki So, Bhawan, Rajkot-360001 /Vs. Rajkot-360470 स्थायी लेखा सं./जी आइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Astpc9150G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारितीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ld. A.R. राजस्वकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. D.R. सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/08/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Order (Ay) 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) (In Short "Ld.Cit(A)",Dated 12.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Act, Dated 28.02.2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

271(1)(b) of the IT Act 1961 requires to be dropped. 10. That the appellant is an individual and not having any taxable Income and as such not required to file Income Tax return u/s 139 of the Income Tax Act 1961 Therefore, the penalty initiated u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act 1961 is require to be dropped

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 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 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

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.954/Rjt/2024

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 27.12.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1) The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. 2) The order of the Ld. AO in so far as he assessed the total income

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

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

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

M/S. KALPATARU CREDIT CO-OPRATIVE SOCIETY,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the matter is set aside to the file of the assessing officer with the above directions

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.

section 147 of the Act on the basis that the Revenue is in possession of information that the assessee purchased cheque/DD in lieu of cash to the tune of ₹ 3,12,360/- from M/s Panchnath Enterprise, Rajkot on various dates during assessment year 2009-10. The AO issued several notices to the assessee, but since the assessee failed to appear

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

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 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 KEYUR N. PANCHANI, L/R. OF LATE SHRI NARENDRA G. PANCHANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, for statistical purpose, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.490/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Shri Keyur N. Panchani (In Income Tax Office, बनाम/ The Representative Capacity Ward – 5(2), Vs. Of Late Shri Narendra G. Rajkot, Aayakar Bhavan, Panchani) C/O. Shilpa Race Course Ring Road, Process, Opp: Mehta Petrol Rajkot – 360 001. Pump, Dhebar Road, Rajkot – 360 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acgpp 8380 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Usha N. Shrote, Sr.D.R.

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when demand of income Tax itself is not sustainable. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when demand

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