SANJAYKUMAR VALLABHBHAI PAN (HUF),RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.958/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sanjaykumar Vallabhbhai Pan (Huf) The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) बनाम 703-, Pyramid Tower Rajkot. Bansi Park Vs. Amin Marg Rajkot 360 001. Pan : Aaohs 9548 F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessing officer in the assessee’s case in the quantum proceeding has made addition in respect of the exempt income received by the assessee for doing the agriculture activities, and the assessee has explained

ARJAN LILA GORANIYA,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WARD 2(4), PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.378/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) Arjan Lila Goraniya Vs. Ito Ward 2 (4), Inajiya Vadi Vistar, Porbandar - 360575 Porbandar Bhojeshwar S.O, Porbandar Bhojeshwar S.O, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ ./Pan/Gir No.: Bbwpg1554P (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That, the findings of Ld. CIT(A) are not justified That, the findings of Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and bad-in-law. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the order passed u/s 144 of the I.T.Act

KANTILAL BABULAL SOLANKI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, JUNAGADH

In the result, the quantum appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2011-12. I.T.A No. 124/Rjt/2016 & 115/A/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Kantilal Babulal Solanki Vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual. For the Asst. Year

KANTILAL BABULAL SOLANKI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, JUNAGADH

In the result, the quantum appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2011-12. I.T.A No. 124/Rjt/2016 & 115/A/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Kantilal Babulal Solanki Vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual. For the Asst. Year

RAMJIBHAI DEVJIBHAI MOKARIYA,PORBANDAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2(4), PORBANDAR

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

penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued then assessee came to know, therefore, delay\nhas occurred in filing appeal before Tribunal. The appellant prays that the delay\nwas not deliberate and nor was any intention to mislead and was due to\ncircumstances beyond control of the appellant. The appellant therefore prays that\nthe delay in filing appeal