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

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 by the assessee

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

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 by the assessee

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

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 and seizure proceedings were conducted. In view of the above discussion

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

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 and seizure proceedings were conducted. In view of the above discussion

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

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 and seizure proceedings were conducted. In view of the above discussion

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

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 and seizure proceedings were conducted. In view of the above discussion

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

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 and seizure proceedings were conducted. In view of the above discussion

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

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 and seizure proceedings were conducted. In view of the above discussion

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

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 and seizure proceedings were conducted. In view of the above discussion

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

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 and seizure proceedings were conducted. In view of the above discussion

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

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 by Affidavit

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms of which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on assessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for reopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act. 2. Thee learned

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

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)

68 was unjustified. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition merely on conjectures and surmises, disregarding the evidentiary value of the documents furnished by the assessee, including lender confirmations and their financial statements. 5. On the facts and circumstances

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:

234C. The same needs suitable reduction. 3 M/s. Ambitious Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO AY : 1997-98 8. Without prejudice, the assessment made is bad in law and deserves annulment. 9. Without prejudice, no adequate, sufficient and reasonable opportunity has been provided while framing assessment. The assessment needs annulment. 10. Without prejudice, no adequate, sufficient and reasonable opportunity

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.”

68 amounting to Rs.10,80,342/-. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the charging of interest u/s. 234A 234B, and 234C of the Act, when addition itself not sustainable. Your Honour's appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any one or more grounds of appeal

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

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