SMT. BIJAL DARSHITBHAI PUJARA,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 292/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2 Smt. Bijal Darshitbhai Pujara vs. Dy. CIT 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in - 1. Confirming Penalty of Rs. 10,67,798/- u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Income

SHRI KANJIBHAI B. RANGANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

short term capital gain as cost of improvement as being amount of premium paid for conversion of land. It is also noted, that the assessee has neither filed revised return of income in response to notice u/s 148 dtd. 17-02-2010 nor given any clarification on the issues covered therein. Also in the return of income filed

SHRI AJAYBHAI ISHWARLAL GOGIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) (5), RAJKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. I.T.A No. 176/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Shri Ajaybhai I. Gogia vs. ITO 2. Without prejudice to ground no. 1, the levy

JAGANI VINODRAI GOPALDAS (HUF),RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (4),, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 59/Rjt/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Jagani Vinodrai Gopaldas Huf, Income-Tax Officer, 62 – Suraj Appartment, Vs. Ward-1(2)(4), No.1 Shroff Road, Rajkot. Opp. Church, Nfac, Delhi Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaahj9710N

short “Ld. CIT(A)”) arising in the matter of penalty order passed under s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-15. Asstt. Year 2014-15 2 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming

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

u/s\n144 of the IT Act, is against the principal of natural justice and therefore the\nheavy addition made of Rs. 66,78,350/- as short term capital gain is required\nto be deleted.\n06. That the appellant has purchased the land under question on 06/08/2010\nand sold on 19/06/2015 which is Long term capital gain, however without\nmaking proper

SHRI RAMESHBHAI B. RANGANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE CIT (A)-3, RAJKOT, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

short term capital gain as cost of improvement being amount of premium paid for conversion of land. Accordingly a final opportunity of being heard in the matter of penalty proceedings was given to the assessee vide this office letter no. 5(2)/RBR/Penalty/2013- 14 dated 10/03/2014. 3.3 In response to said letter, assessee did not file any written submission/reply till

SHRI SUBIR YUDHISTHIR DAS,BELAPUR, THANE (MAHARASTRA) vs. THE CIT(A)-13, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1) © of the Act without appreciating the fact that the appellant denies his liability to the same. 7. During the course of Assessment the appellant has submitted all the documents related to his status of NRI and sources of Income, the Investment was made in shares out of Appellant Salary Income which was earned

SHRI RAMA MEPA ODEDARA,PORBANDAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, PORBANDAR

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us, The Counsel For The Assessee Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay & Argued That The Reason For Delay In Filing Appeal Before Itat Was That The Assessee Was Suffering From Spinal Injury & Was Advised Complete Bed Rest By The Doctors. In Support Of The Above Contention, The Assessee Also Filed Medical Certificate With Respect To The Injury Suffered

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) - - are not justified and are bad-in-law. 5. The assessee craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeals. Total tax effect (see note below) Rs. 18,28,550/- Condonation of Delay

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

short ‘the Act’).The main ground of appeal by the department (Revenue) is pertaining to assailing and deletion of 70% of additions made on account of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee, on the other hand is assailing the confirmation of 30% of cash deposits, in addition to other legal grounds regarding not considering assessee, as an Angadia, not adopting peak

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

short ‘the Act').The main ground of appeal by the department (Revenue) is pertaining to assailing and deletion of 70% of additions made on account of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee, on the other hand is assailing the confirmation of 30% of cash deposits, in addition to other legal grounds regarding not considering assessee, as an Angadia, not adopting peak

SMT. INDUMATIBEN G. PARMAR,,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed on merits

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 39/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

short), dated 22.12.2017 arising in the assessment order dated 27.03.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2007-08. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee reads as under: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Rajkot has erred in confirming

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

KUMAR RAMESH SAHU,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

short, “the Act”). 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows: ITA No.336 /RJT/2023 Kumar Ramesh Sahu vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2009-10 “1. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in Law and facts in confirming the addition made by AO of Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 12,79,751 and denial of exemption u/s.54

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

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 of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee, on the other hand is\nassailing the confirmation of 30% of cash deposits, in addition to other legal grounds\nregarding not considering assessee, as an Angadia, not adopting peak

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

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 of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee, on the other hand is\nassailing the confirmation of 30% of cash deposits, in addition to other legal grounds\nregarding not considering assessee, as an Angadia, not adopting peak

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

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 of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee, on the other hand is\nassailing the confirmation of 30% of cash deposits, in addition to other legal grounds\nregarding not considering assessee, as an Angadia, not adopting peak

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

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 of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee, on the other hand is\nassailing the confirmation of 30% of cash deposits, in addition to other legal grounds\nregarding not considering assessee, as an Angadia, not adopting peak

BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT

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 of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee, on the other hand is\nassailing the confirmation of 30% of cash deposits, in addition to other legal grounds\nregarding not considering assessee, as an Angadia, not adopting peak