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

271(1)(c) of the Act, on the technical\nissue, being the penalty notice is defective, therefore, all other issues on merits\nof the penalty, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic\nand infructuous, hence do not require adjudication.\n36. Since the facts and circumstances in the case of ITA No.76/RJT/2022, for\nAY 2008-09, are identical to those

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, on the technical\nissue, being the penalty notice is defective, therefore, all other issues on merits\nof the penalty, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic\nand infructuous, hence do not require adjudication.\n36. Since the facts and circumstances in the case of ITA No.76/RJT/2022, for\nAY 2008-09, are identical to those

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, on the technical\nissue, being the penalty notice is defective, therefore, all other issues on merits\nof the penalty, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic\nand infructuous, hence do not require adjudication.\n\n36. Since the facts and circumstances in the case of ITA No.76/RJT/2022, for\nAY 2008-09, are identical

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, on the technical\nissue, being the penalty notice is defective, therefore, all other issues on merits\nof the penalty, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic\nand infructuous, hence do not require adjudication.\n36. Since the facts and circumstances in the case of ITA No.76/RJT/2022, for\nAY 2008-09, are identical to those

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

271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs.10,09,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. 34. Brief

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

271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs.10,09,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. 34. Brief

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

271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs.10,09,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. 34. Brief

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

271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs.10,09,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. 34. Brief

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

271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs.10,09,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. 34. Brief

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

271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs.10,09,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. 34. Brief

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

271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs.10,09,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. 34. Brief

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

271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs.10,09,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. 34. Brief

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, on the technical\nissue, being the penalty notice is defective, therefore, all other issues on merits\nof the penalty, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic\nand infructuous, hence do not require adjudication.\n36.\nSince the facts and circumstances in the case of ITA No.76/RJT/2022, for\nAY 2008-09, are identical to those

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

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 in Ground No.3 is consequential and does not require any separate adjudication. Therefore, we dismiss the same. 4. The issue raised by the assessee in ground No.1

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

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 in Ground No.3 is consequential and does not require any separate adjudication. Therefore, we dismiss the same. 4. The issue raised by the assessee in ground No.1

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

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 in Ground No.3 is consequential and does not require any separate adjudication. Therefore, we dismiss the same. 4. The issue raised by the assessee in ground No.1

SHRI HASMUKH KESHAVLAL KESARIA-HUF,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: C .M. Garg & O. P. Meena

68,111 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The AO observed that the assessee has failed

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06. Since in all these appeals/cross- objections, issues and facts are intertwined to each other, we proceed to dispose of all by this common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. 3. Before adverting the specific grievance of the parties in particular