SHRI RAHIM UMARBHAI RAVKARDA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 of the I.T. Act. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That, the findings

TRICOT IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Hearing Of Appeal.”

section 143(3) of the Act, is bad in law as well as facts. 2. The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law as well as facts. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts as well as in law by in confirming the addition in respect of unproved sundry

GHANSHYAMBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL,AT PO UMARDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 SURENDRANAGAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE IRISH BUILDING

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 382/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (N.A.) (Hybrid Hearing) Ghanshyambhai Mohanbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Surendranagar, Income Tax Near Swaminarayan Mandir, At Umarda, Vs. Office, Irish Building, Opp. Mela Ta.Muli, Dist. Surendranagar-363 510 Medan, Surendranagar-363 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Brjpp 6166 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Sections 234A and 234B may be recomputed based on th revised income. • Relief may kindly be granted in the interest of equity, justice, and fair play. • Set aside the appellate order dated 17/12/2024 passed by CIT(A), Ahmedabad-7. • Delete the additions made u/s 69A and u/s 44AD amounting to ?10,87,340/-. • Restore the matter

M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. (6). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed application of provisions of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961. (7). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A and 271AAC of the I.T. Act, 1961. (8). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly charged

BHAVESH ISHWARLAL PANCHASARA,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.95/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Bhavesh Ishwarlal बनाम Assistant Commissioner Of Panchasara Income-Tax, Circle-3(1), Rajkot /Vs. 1, Mehulnagar Main Road, Near Khodiyar Temple, Rajkot-360 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aodpp 1375 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68 of I.T. Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed wrongly initiation of penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) ha wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That the findings

URVASHI GIRISHBHAI LAL,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That, the findings

JITENDRABHAI BHAGVANBHAI DALVADI,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Jitendrabhai B Dalvadi 2 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That

KISHAN BEEJ,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.384/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kishan Beej Ito, Wared-2(1) बनाम Kashivishvanath Road Jamnagar – 361 001 Nr. P & T Office Vs. Jamnagar – 361 001 Pan : Aacfk 2114 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

234A, 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6.That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty u/s 271AAC and 272(A)(1)(d) of the Act,1961. 7.The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any aforesaid grounds of appeal. 3. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly

CHAKARGADH SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,CHAKARGADH SEVA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT(CPC),, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

234A for the delay in filing of the return. Various High Courts have held that the provisions of 234 AB&C to be valid and not ultra virus of the constitution. The assessees have been paying the interest for any such delay. On comparison, it is not farfetched to argue that the assessees have to forgo certain benefits

SHRI MANOJ DHANJIBHAI PANSURIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Hri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 8. That, the findings of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. 9. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

M/S. AARVEE INTERNATIONAL, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT

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

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

section 144 of the Act, is bad in law as well as facts. 2.The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law as well as facts. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts as well as in law by in confirming the addition in respect of undisclosed interest income received