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

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

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

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

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.

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 the grounds

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

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 any of the above ground

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

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.

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 of Income Tax itself

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

M/S MKC INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANJAR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

234D of the I.T. Act. Since the charging of interest is consequential in nature, therefore, no interference is called for. 7.0 Last ground of appeal is regarding initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. In view of the facts that the proceedings have not crystallized no interference on this point is called