SHRI JAWAHIR RAVICHANDRA MEHTA,DUBAI(UAE) vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result appeal of the assessee vide ITA/81/Rjt/2020 stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Memebr

1)(g), the factors considered relevant include the context in which retroactivity was contemplated such as whether the law is one of validation of taxing statute struck-down by courts for certain defects; the period of such retroactivity, and the decree and extent of any unforeseen or unforeseeable financial burden imposed for the past period etc." 18. In Govinddas

GODHAVADAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,GODHAVADAR, LILIYA MOTA, AMRELI-365535 vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

C.— Deductions in respect of certain incomes" (which includes deduction under section 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. This amendment has been introduced w.e.f. 1-4-2021. Accordingly, the above amendment would not apply to the impugned assessment year

BATAVA DEVLI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,BATAVA DEVLI, TAL. KUNLAVA, DIST. AMRELI. vs. THE ADIT, (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

C.— Deductions in respect of certain incomes" (which includes deduction under section 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. This amendment has been introduced w.e.f. 1-4-2021. Accordingly, the above amendment would not apply to the impugned assessment year

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

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

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

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

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

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

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

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

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

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

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

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

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

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

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

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

SHRI SANJAYBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

11 & 2011-12 towards quantum addition and Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 27-10-2016 for AY 2005- 06 & 23-12-2016 for AY 2006-07 & 27-10-2016 for AYs 2007-08, 2010-11 & 2011-12) towards penalty under different sections of the Act. ITA Nos.174/Rjt/2014 and 26 appeals Shri Dineshbhhai

SHRI KISHOR GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

11 & 2011-12 towards quantum addition and Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 27-10-2016 for AY 2005- 06 & 23-12-2016 for AY 2006-07 & 27-10-2016 for AYs 2007-08, 2010-11 & 2011-12) towards penalty under different sections of the Act. ITA Nos.174/Rjt/2014 and 26 appeals Shri Dineshbhhai

SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

11 & 2011-12 towards quantum addition and Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 27-10-2016 for AY 2005- 06 & 23-12-2016 for AY 2006-07 & 27-10-2016 for AYs 2007-08, 2010-11 & 2011-12) towards penalty under different sections of the Act. ITA Nos.174/Rjt/2014 and 26 appeals Shri Dineshbhhai

RAKESH BASANTILAL LADDHA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

PARAG MAKANBHAI PARSANA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

JAYESHBHAI KANJIBHAI DANGARIYA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

VISHAL ENTERPRISE, ,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

SHRI TRAMBAKPUR SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,AT TRAMBAKPUR TALUKA DHARI DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT/ACIT (CPC),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

11,630/- under section 80P of the Act. The issue for consideration before us is that whether once the return of income is filed beyond the prescribed date under section 139(1) of the Act, can the deduction under section 80P of the Act be denied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section