SHREE MALIYA KADVA PATEL SEVA SAMAJ,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed in above terms

68,271/- during the year towards Building Construction Fund, which amount has been utilised in same year for building construction (as reflected in audited Balance sheet filed) (Page 1-6 annexed herewith). Being on capital account and for capital asset and forming part of corpus of trust, such receipts have been held to be capital receipts not being income

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

B) of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act provides that where the assessee is not able to substantiate its explanation and fails to prove that such explanation is bonafide and all the facts relating to the same have been disclosed, penalty is leviable. This being the factual position, therefore penalty under section 271(1

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 Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

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 Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

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 Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

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 Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

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 Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

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 Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

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 Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

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 Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

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"

b) Made on a/c of capital expenditure Rs.18,745/- A.Y. 2005-06 5 Made on a/c of non verified expenses Rs.13,100/- Made on a/c. of personal expenses Rs.18,100/- Made on a/c. of excess depreciation Rs.10,208/- 14.1 The lower authorities held that the assessee has concealed income to the above extent and levied penalty under section 271

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

KAMLESHKUMAR VALLABHBHAI CHANCHADIYA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD-2(1)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

68 of Rs. 11,00,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, notice u/s. 142(1) dated 16/05/2018 & 17/09/2018 were served upon the assessee. In response, the assessee failed to reply during the assessment proceedings. Therefore the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) for non- compliance of the above notices and opportunity was given to the assessee

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

B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 01/07/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 14/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER BENCH: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals), (in short the Ld. CIT(A)), Jamnagar dated 17/05/2018arising

SMT. ZARNABEN VIBHASHBHAI SHETH,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 21/12/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 04/01/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 (in short

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

B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 21/12/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 04/01/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 (in short

ATMAN RAJNIKANT BHESDADIYA L/R. LATE SHRI RAJNIKANT LAVJIBHAI BHEDADIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act. 8.1. For adjudicating the levy of penalty is correct in law or otherwise, Section 271AAB is reproduced as follows: Penalty where search has been initiated. 271AAB. (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section

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.

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

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

1) When it related to cause of death – when the statements is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the case of that person's death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made