SHRI BHARATBHUSHAN KISHANLAL GUPTA,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ITO- INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lalsaini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 269/Rjt/2019 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Bharatbhushan Kishanlal Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Gupta, (International Taxation) Prop. Of Aqua Shipping, Suit - Gandhidham – 370210 100, Grain Merchant Association Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 297, Wd – 12B, Gandhidham – 370001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afcpg3849N (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, mechanically. 8. 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.” 3. Additional ground raised by the assessee, is as follows: "The Order passed

SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer-2, Ahmedabad and therefore the time limitation for completion of scrutiny was extended. Assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA of the Act vide order dated 24/12/2018 and the total income was determined at Rs.2,62,08,060/- by making addition of Rs.1,80,000/- on account of deemed rent. Since the assessee

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

penalty should also be imposed upon the assessee in addition to addition made by AO in quantum proceedings. Apart from this, Ld. CIT-DR relied on the detailed submission in case of Karim K. Makani in IT(SS)A No.103-108 and 125-130/RJT/2017 dated 11.11.2024, which are reproduced below:\n12. Before us, Ld.CIT-DR submitted written submission also, which

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)

penalty should also be imposed upon the assessee in addition to addition made by AO in quantum proceedings. Apart from this, Ld. CIT-DR relied on the detailed submission in case of Karim K. Makani in IT(SS)A No.103-108 and 125-130/RJT/2017 dated 11.11.2024, which are reproduced below: 12. Before us, Ld.CIT-DR submitted written submission also, which

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer (short as ‘assessing officer’) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263, r.w.s. 144B and u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Since in these four appeals, filed by the assessee, the identical and similar issues are involved, hence, all these appeals are clubbed and ITA Nos.74-77/Rjt/2024

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1) (2) , RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer (short as ‘assessing officer’) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263, r.w.s. 144B and u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Since in these four appeals, filed by the assessee, the identical and similar issues are involved, hence, all these appeals are clubbed and ITA Nos.74-77/Rjt/2024

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1) (2) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer (short as ‘assessing officer’) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263, r.w.s. 144B and u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Since in these four appeals, filed by the assessee, the identical and similar issues are involved, hence, all these appeals are clubbed and ITA Nos.74-77/Rjt/2024

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer (short as ‘assessing officer’) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263, r.w.s. 144B and u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Since in these four appeals, filed by the assessee, the identical and similar issues are involved, hence, all these appeals are clubbed and ITA Nos.74-77/Rjt/2024

SOLO STEEL TECH,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

price\nbeing Rs.100/-, out of which Rs.80/- is the disclosed sales while Rs.20/- is the\nsuppressed sales). The assessee is in contact with the sellers and the purchasers.\nSince the purchasers are bound by sec.40A (3) and other provisions of I.T.Act by\nvirtue of which it is not permissible for them to make payment of about Rs.20,000/-\nin cash

PARAS RAMESHCHANDRA DOSHI,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT - 1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

price\nbeing Rs.100/-, out of which Rs.80/- is the disclosed sales while Rs.20/- is the\nsuppressed sales). The assessee is in contact with the sellers and the purchasers.\nSince the purchasers are bound by sec.40A (3) and other provisions of I.T.Act by\nvirtue of which it is not permissible for them to make payment of about Rs.20,000/-\nin cash

THE DEPUTY COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.1,, RAJKOT vs. JAYESH HARAKHJI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals filed by the different assessee's and Revenue\nare allowed for statistical purposes

price being Rs.100/-, out of which Rs.80/- is the disclosed sales while\nRs.20/- is the suppressed sales). The assessee is in contact with the sellers and the\npurchasers. Since the purchasers are bound by sec.40A (3) and other provisions of I.T.Act\nby virtue of which it is not permissible for them to make payment of about Rs.20,000/- in\ncash

JAYESH HARAKHJI PATEL,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.1,, RAJKOT

price being Rs.100/-, out of which Rs.80/- is the disclosed sales while\nRs.20/- is the suppressed sales). The assessee is in contact with the sellers and the\npurchasers. Since the purchasers are bound by sec.40A (3) and other provisions of I.T.Act\nby virtue of which it is not permissible for them to make payment of about Rs.20,000/- in\ncash

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

penalty should also be imposed upon the assessee in addition to\naddition made by AO in quantum proceedings. Apart from this, Ld. CIT-DR\nrelied on the detailed submission in case of Karim K. Makani in IT(SS)A\nNo.103-108 and 125-130/RJT/2017 dated 11.11.2024, which are reproduced\nbelow:\n12. Before us, Ld.CIT-DR submitted written submission also, which

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

penalty should also be imposed upon the assessee in addition to\naddition made by AO in quantum proceedings. Apart from this, Ld. CIT-DR\nrelied on the detailed submission in case of Karim K. Makani in IT(SS)A\nNo.103-108 and 125-130/RJT/2017 dated 11.11.2024, which are reproduced\nbelow:\n12.\nBefore us, Ld.CIT-DR submitted written submission also, which

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

penalty should also be imposed upon the assessee in addition to\naddition made by AO in quantum proceedings. Apart from this, Ld. CIT-DR\nrelied on the detailed submission in case of Karim K. Makani in IT(SS)A\nNo.103-108 and 125-130/RJT/2017 dated 11.11.2024, which are reproduced\nbelow:\n12. Before us, Ld.CIT-DR submitted written submission also, which

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

penalty should also be imposed upon the assessee in addition to\naddition made by AO in quantum proceedings. Apart from this, Ld. CIT-DR\nrelied on the detailed submission in case of Karim K. Makani in IT(SS)A\nNo.103-108 and 125-130/RJT/2017 dated 11.11.2024, which are reproduced\nbelow:\n12. Before us, Ld.CIT-DR submitted written submission also, which

BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT

penalty should also be imposed upon the assessee in addition to\naddition made by AO in quantum proceedings. Apart from this, Ld. CIT-DR\nrelied on the detailed submission in case of Karim K. Makani in IT(SS)A\nNo.103-108 and 125-130/RJT/2017 dated 11.11.2024, which are reproduced\nbelow:\n12. Before us, Ld.CIT-DR submitted written submission also, which

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT vs. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,, RAJKOT

penalty should also be imposed upon the assessee in addition to\naddition made by AO in quantum proceedings. Apart from this, Ld. CIT-DR\nrelied on the detailed submission in case of Karim K. Makani in IT(SS)A\nNo.103-108 and 125-130/RJT/2017 dated 11.11.2024, which are reproduced\nbelow:\n12.\nBefore us, Ld.CIT-DR submitted written submission also, which

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

penalty should also be imposed upon the assessee in addition to\naddition made by AO in quantum proceedings. Apart from this, Ld. CIT-DR\nrelied on the detailed submission in case of Karim K. Makani in IT(SS)A\nNo.103-108 and 125-130/RJT/2017 dated 11.11.2024, which are reproduced\nbelow:\n12. Before us, Ld.CIT-DR submitted written submission also, which