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

DHAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,DHAR, TALUKA: - SAVARKUNDLA, DIST. AMRELI-GUJARAT. vs. THE DCIT(CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

13,568/- under section 80P of the Act. The I.T.A No. 33/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 6 Dhar Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. DCIT(CPC) 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

HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

13. The ld. PCIT also noted that with effect from 01/06/2015, Explanation 2 to the section 263(1) has been inserted by which scope of section 263 of the Act has been expanded by incorporating the concept of "deemed to be erroneous". The same is reproduced as under: “Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly,\nassessing officer satisfied that penalty u/s. 271AAB should be levied in the\ncase of the assessee at the rate of 30% of the undisclosed income of the\nspecified previous year. The undisclosed income of the specified previous year\nwas Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs.1,80,000/- deemed Rent + Rs. Rs. 23,20,000 advance),\ntherefore

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly,\nassessing officer satisfied that penalty u/s. 271AAB should be levied in the\ncase of the assessee at the rate of 30% of the undisclosed income of the\nspecified previous year. The undisclosed income of the specified previous year\nwas Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs.1,80,000/- deemed Rent + Rs. Rs. 23,20,000 advance),\ntherefore

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly,\nassessing officer satisfied that penalty u/s. 271AAB should be levied in the\ncase of the assessee at the rate of 30% of the undisclosed income of the\nspecified previous year. The undisclosed income of the specified previous year\nwas Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs.1,80,000/- deemed Rent + Rs. Rs. 23,20,000 advance),\ntherefore

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

13==\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\nconcealed the particulars of your income by furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income.”. gives only one meaning, that is concealment of\nIncome. Therefore, it is only one limb and only one charge, and there are no two\nseparate charges, stated by the assessing officer

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

section 37(1)/ 28 of the Act. Thus we disagree with the contention of the learned CIT-A. 12.1 Thus after considering the facts in totality, we are of the view that The Assessing Officer had emphasized on the fact that the assessee failed to produce the necessary details of the parties. Indeed such details of the parties were

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

section 37(1)/ 28 of the Act. Thus we disagree with the contention of the learned CIT-A. 12.1 Thus after considering the facts in totality, we are of the view that The Assessing Officer had emphasized on the fact that the assessee failed to produce the necessary details of the parties. Indeed such details of the parties were

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly,\nassessing officer satisfied that penalty u/s. 271AAB should be levied in the\ncase of the assessee at the rate of 30% of the undisclosed income of the\nspecified previous year. The undisclosed income of the specified previous year\nwas Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs.1,80,000/- deemed Rent + Rs. Rs. 23,20,000 advance),\ntherefore

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

68 of the Act.\n2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have\nconsidered that the assessee merely submitted sale bills without providing contra confirmation\nof any buyer and failed to substantiate genuineness of sale transactions.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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

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

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

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

13==\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\nconcealed the particulars of your income by furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income.\", gives only one meaning, that is concealment of\nIncome. Therefore, it is only one limb and only one charge, and there are no two\nseparate charges, stated by the assessing officer

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