SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

271(1)(c) of the Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

271(1)(c) of the Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

271(1)(c) of the Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

271(1)(c) of the Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

271(1)(c) of the Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

271(1)(c) of the Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

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

271(1)(b) of the IT Act 1961\nrequires to be dropped.\n10. That the appellant is an individual and not having any taxable Income and\nas such not required to file Income Tax return u/s 139 of the Income Tax Act\n1961 Therefore, the penalty initiated u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act 1961 is\nrequire to be dropped

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

271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is initiated\nfor concealing the particulars of income.\"\n3.12.2. Same finding has been given by the A.O. for the other assessment years in all\nthe case of above mentioned appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the\nappellant filed detailed submission against the additions made. The appellant\ncontended that they are engaged in the business

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

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

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

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

SHRI PRASHANT TRIVEDI, PROP. OF KUDOS SHIPPING CORPORATION,,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 3. The fact in brief is that the assessee on behalf of M/s. Faber Ship Brokers APS, Denmark has filed a provisional and final return of income on I.T.A Nos. 572 & 573/Rjt/2012 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 3 Shri Prashant Trivedi vs. ITO 13th May, 2009 without paying freight tax claiming

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

KANDLA STEEL PRIVATE LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Arriving At Conclusion Against The Appellant, Hence, The Order Passed Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice & Jurisprudence.

234B, U/s. 234D and interest recovered U/s. 244A of the Act may please be cancelled. (iii) That the penalty proceedings initiated, u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act may please be cancelled. (iv) such other relief or deduction as the facts and circumstances of the case so requires be granted. [9] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify

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