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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

234B, 234C is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 2. The issue raised by the assessee in Ground No. 2 relates to the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) which is premature to decide. Therefore, we dismiss the same. 3. Similarly, the issue raised

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

234B, 234C is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 2. The issue raised by the assessee in Ground No. 2 relates to the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) which is premature to decide. Therefore, we dismiss the same. 3. Similarly, the issue raised

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

234B, 234C is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 2. The issue raised by the assessee in Ground No. 2 relates to the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) which is premature to decide. Therefore, we dismiss the same. 3. Similarly, the issue raised

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) :

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 are as follows

ANSHOYABEN BHAGVANJIBHAI BHOJANI,MORBI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORBI, MORBI

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 13/Rjt/2026 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Anshoyaben Bhagvanjibhai Bhojani, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Morbi Shreeji Nagar, B/H. Chhatralaya Road, Vs. Income Tax Office, Aayakar Vibhag, B/H New Bus Stand, Morbi, J.K. Chamber, National Highway-8-A, Gujarat 363641 At- Lalpar, Morbi Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Brnpb6281R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

234B, 234C and 234D of the Act without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act. 10. It is prayed that the addition made by the Assessing

M/S. HINDUSTAN PROJECTS,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (1) (1), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts as well as in law by confirming the addition by Rs.12,77,083/- made by the learned Assessing Officer under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts as well

VIREN VALLABHDAS DHAKAN,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

234b, 234c It Is Totally Wrong, Unwarranted, Unjustified And Bad In Law. 6. Your Applicant Reserves The Right In Addition Or Alteration In The Grounds Of Appeal At The Time Of Hearing.” 3. At the outset, that the appeal filed late by 363 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported

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

M/S AMBITIOUS FINANCE & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Mrs. Madhumita Royिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 1997-98 M/S. Ambitious Finance & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Investment Pvt. Ltd., Ward- 2(4), 107, Kapad Market, Para Bazar, Rajkot Rajkot Pan : Aabca 8076 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Written Submission Revenue By : Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming order passed U/s. 144 which is totally bad on facts as also in law. The same deserves to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming order passed U/s. 144 determining income of Rs. 51,95,100/- as against return

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

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.”

1. The Assessment Order under 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