SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

271B and 271F of the Act. 8. That, the Ld. AO has wrongly charged interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. 9. That, the findings of the Ld. AO are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal” Page

SHRI PARESHKUMAR NARSHIBHAI SIROYA,DHORAJI, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

reassessment stage, there is no question\nof having taken one view of the matter or taking two different views by the assessing officer\nor by the CIT.\n(iii)The Hon'ble ITAT, Cochin in the case of Shri Narayana Dharam Paripalana\nYuvadhana Samiti vs. ITO, Exemption (2019) 111 taxmnan.com 416 has held that where\nthe assessing officer has taken

SURESH RATILAL LODARIA,ANJAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2, GANDHIDHAM., GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 28.09.2022. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. The Penalty order u/s/ 271B of the Act is bad in law. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in levying the penalty of Rs.1

ASHISH MANSUKHLAL GOKANI,MITHAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.483/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 बनाम Ashish Mansukhlal Gokani Commissioner Of Income Tax Mithapur, Dist: Devbhoomi, (Appeals), / Dwarka (Guj) – 361345 National Faceless Assessment Vs [Mahesh N. Paun Advocate, Centre (Nfac), Income Tax Taxation Consultant, Shreeji Department, Delhi Chambers, 17-Nava Para, Near S.B.I. (Adb), Jam-Khambhaliya, Gujarat – 361305] "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aappg2259N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

271B as well as Ld. Commissioner of Appeals (NFAC) by not considering the submission fully, rather than deleting the addition partly substained to the extent of Rs. 7,49,971/-. (3) Learned Commissioner of Appeals (NFAC) erred by not considering the facts and submissions regarding not given effective opportunity to being heard by Ld. assessing officer, dismissed the ground

YESHA DHIRAJLAL THAKRAR,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 29.01.2022 (Din: Itba/Pnl/F/271(1)(B)/2021-22/1039193062(1)) Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer,Nfac, Delhi(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(B) Of The 1961 Act Levying Penalty Of Rs. 30,000/- Against The Assesse For Non Compliance Of Three Notices Dated 27.07.2021, 06.08.2021 & 16.08.2021 Issued During Reassessment Proceedings , All Three Aforesaid Notices U/S 142(1) Of The 1961 Act. The Proceedings Were Conducted Before Division Bench Through E-Court Through Virtual Hearing Mode.

271B(sic. 271(1)(b)) of the Act. The levy of Penalty is not justified.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 read with Section