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

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

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms\nof which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on\nassessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for\nreopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act.\n2. Thee learned CIT(A)-1 has erred

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

ASHOKBHAI MAHADEVBHAI CHAVDA,SURENDRANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

234B of the Act is not justified.\n3. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified.\n3. Facts of the case that the assessee is a agriculturist along with the assessee\nis engaged in commodity transactions with the MCX using a demat. Since\nthe total income is below the taxable limit, hence no Return

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

M/S AMBITIOUS FINANCE & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Mrs. Madhumita Royिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 1997-98 M/S. Ambitious Finance & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Investment Pvt. Ltd., Ward- 2(4), 107, Kapad Market, Para Bazar, Rajkot Rajkot Pan : Aabca 8076 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Written Submission Revenue By : Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

234B and 234C. The same needs suitable reduction. 3 M/s. Ambitious Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO AY : 1997-98 8. Without prejudice, the assessment made is bad in law and deserves annulment. 9. Without prejudice, no adequate, sufficient and reasonable opportunity has been provided while framing assessment. The assessment needs annulment. 10. Without prejudice, no adequate, sufficient and reasonable

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

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

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

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

SAR AUTO PRODUCTS LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result impugned order in set aside and, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The learned Assessing officer has initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act 1961 The appellant, being aggrieved by the said order, has preferred this appeal. 4. That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of AO dated 16.12.2016 before the Ld.CIT(A) which is allowed

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.

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