SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

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

69,983/- and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) for not replying to the 142(1) notices. 3. In the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b), the assessee replied by way of written submissions that the details were not filed to the Assessing Officer because of non-availability of the Accountant. This explanation was not accepted

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

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

69,983/- and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) for not replying to the 142(1) notices. 3. In the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b), the assessee replied by way of written submissions that the details were not filed to the Assessing Officer because of non-availability of the Accountant. This explanation was not accepted

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

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

69,983/- and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) for not replying to the 142(1) notices. 3. In the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b), the assessee replied by way of written submissions that the details were not filed to the Assessing Officer because of non-availability of the Accountant. This explanation was not accepted

ATMAN RAJNIKANT BHESDADIYA L/R. LATE SHRI RAJNIKANT LAVJIBHAI BHEDADIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

69,043/-. The return was taken for scrutiny assessment and the returned income of Rs.9,84,720/- was fully accepted. However in the agricultural income, wherein an addition of Rs.46,957/- was made by estimating average yield of cotton crops during the year and treated the same as undisclosed cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against

RAMKRUPA COT-GIN CORPORATION,,AT. CHHAPRA, TAL.LODHIKA, DIST.RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-1 (2) (2),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

271(l)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- although no legal service of the notices for which penalty is levied is there. The penalty needs cancellation. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not Rs. 10,000/- considering the aspect that the order levying penalty has been passed without confirming statutory position. The penalty order passed

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

69,186/-. 15. Ground Nos.5 and 6 are general grounds of appeal, and did not call for recording of any finding, hence, rejected. 16. In ground no.7, the assessee has challenged levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D. It is consequential in nature and rejected. 17. In Ground No.8 the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty proceedings

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

69,186/-. 15. Ground Nos.5 and 6 are general grounds of appeal, and did not call for recording of any finding, hence, rejected. 16. In ground no.7, the assessee has challenged levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D. It is consequential in nature and rejected. 17. In Ground No.8 the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty proceedings

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

69,186/-. 15. Ground Nos.5 and 6 are general grounds of appeal, and did not call for recording of any finding, hence, rejected. 16. In ground no.7, the assessee has challenged levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D. It is consequential in nature and rejected. 17. In Ground No.8 the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty proceedings

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

69,186/-. 15. Ground Nos.5 and 6 are general grounds of appeal, and did not call for recording of any finding, hence, rejected. 16. In ground no.7, the assessee has challenged levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D. It is consequential in nature and rejected. 17. In Ground No.8 the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty proceedings

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

69,186/-. 15. Ground Nos.5 and 6 are general grounds of appeal, and did not call for recording of any finding, hence, rejected. 16. In ground no.7, the assessee has challenged levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D. It is consequential in nature and rejected. 17. In Ground No.8 the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty proceedings

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

69,186/-. 15. Ground Nos.5 and 6 are general grounds of appeal, and did not call for recording of any finding, hence, rejected. 16. In ground no.7, the assessee has challenged levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D. It is consequential in nature and rejected. 17. In Ground No.8 the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty proceedings

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

69,186/-. 15. Ground Nos.5 and 6 are general grounds of appeal, and did not call for recording of any finding, hence, rejected. 16. In ground no.7, the assessee has challenged levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D. It is consequential in nature and rejected. 17. In Ground No.8 the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty proceedings

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

69,186/-. 15. Ground Nos.5 and 6 are general grounds of appeal, and did not call for recording of any finding, hence, rejected. 16. In ground no.7, the assessee has challenged levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D. It is consequential in nature and rejected. 17. In Ground No.8 the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty proceedings

M/S AJAY SALT & CHEMICALS,,UNA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

U/s. 271 (l)(c) of the IT Act. 3.2 Thus the concluding para also does not specify a specific charge and it mention both the charges. The Hon. Gujarat High Court has specifically required to arrive at a charge specifically. 3.3 In view of the above it is humbly submitted that Provisions under which penalty imposable should be clearly stated

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. THE JAMNAGAR DISTRICT CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and points of differences referred to me by the Ld. JM and learned AM are answered accordingly. 12. Reliance is placed in the matter decided by Supreme court CIT V. Skyline Ante Products (p) Ltd. (2004) 271 ITR 335 : (2005), that mere omission from the return of an item of receipt does neither

SHRI NIZARALI BAHADURBHAI HAJIYANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, MORBI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2012-13 to 2014-15. I.T.A Nos. 298 to 300/Rjt/2019 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15 Page No 2 Shri Nizarali Bahadurhai Hajiyani vs. ITO 2. These appeals are listed for hearing 9th time today and none appeared

SHRI NIZARALI BAHADURBHAI HAJIYANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, MORBI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2012-13 to 2014-15. I.T.A Nos. 298 to 300/Rjt/2019 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15 Page No 2 Shri Nizarali Bahadurhai Hajiyani vs. ITO 2. These appeals are listed for hearing 9th time today and none appeared

SHRI NIZARALI BAHADURBHAI HAJIYANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, MORBI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2012-13 to 2014-15. I.T.A Nos. 298 to 300/Rjt/2019 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15 Page No 2 Shri Nizarali Bahadurhai Hajiyani vs. ITO 2. These appeals are listed for hearing 9th time today and none appeared