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 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 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 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 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

PARESH DAYASHANKAR MADEKA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), RAJKOT

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

sections 68 and 271(1)(c), of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Reference to High Court Question of fact

ANUP A. SHAH,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 106/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2005-2006 वष"

68 has also held that where the assessment of the assessee was completed on estimated basis penalty under section 271

M/S AJAY SALT & CHEMICALS,,UNA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

68 of the Act. The term inaccurate particular of income has not been defined under the provisions of section 271

FORTUNE DEVELOPERS,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

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

68 of the Act. The AO also initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. It was, during

SHRI VAJUBHAI N. KANANI,AMRELI vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(4),, AMRELI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 29/Rjt/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Vajubhai N. Kanani The I.T.O., बनाम/ Prop. Of M/S. Krishna Ward-2(4), Amreli Vs. Construction, At – Malsika, Tal. Dhari, Amreli "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afppk0597L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Written Submission (None) ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 05/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 20/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.01.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 25.04.2013 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward-2(4), Amreli Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As To ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita No. 29/Rjt/2020 (Shri Vajubhai N. Kanani Vs. Ito) A. Y. 2007-08 - 2- 2. None Appeared At The Time Of Call On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, The Ld. Dr Appeared & Made His Submission In Favour Of The Orders Passed By The Authorities Below In Imposing Penalty For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

68 of the Act to the tune of Rs.24,90,000/-. Penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was separately

SHRI KRISHANMOHAN RAMWADH SHINGH,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, JAMNAGAR

In the result appeal, of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 has also held that where the assessment of the assessee was completed on estimated basis penalty under Section 271