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

deduction of TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n11\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions may be good but not for penalty. The\nassessee has relied on the various judgements. However, ld CIT(A) rejected the\nabove contention

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

deduction of TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n\n11\n\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions may be good but not for penalty. The\nassessee has relied on the various judgements. However, ld CIT(A) rejected

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

deduction of TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n11\nH\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions may be good but not for penalty

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961\n[hereinafter referred as to the \"Act\"] at Rs.35,55,728/-on the alleged ground that the\nassessee has not disclosed the income earned of Rs.1,04,61,096/- from the\nundisclosed foreign account either in the return of income filed u/s.139(1) or 153A of\nthe Act. The penalty

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

deduction of TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n11\nH\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions may be good but not for penalty

M/S SHREE RAJMOTI INDS.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE A. C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

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

deduction, there was obviously no question of imposing any penalty upon assessee – Held, Yes [Para 7] [ in favour of assessee]” I.T.A No. 172/Rjt/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 8 M/s. Shree Rajmoti Industries Vs.DCIT 9. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we have no hesitation in deleting the penalty of Rs. 3,18,810/- levied u/s. 271

THE DCIT, (INTL. TAXN.), RAJKOT vs. M/S. KOREA SOUTH EAST POWER CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit (Intl. Taxn.) M/S.Korea South East Power Amruta Estate Co.Ltd. Room No.312 Mg Road बनाम/ C/O. P.V. Page & Co., Girnar Cinema 201, Sardar Griha, 198 L.T. Marg Vs. Rajkot Mumbai – 400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Pan : Ahvps 3555Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

u/s 44BBB of the Act .that while doing so there was no change in the Book results or other figures. • That similar benefit was availed by the assessee in subsequent years also A.Y 12-13 & 13-14 , and similar adverse inference drawn by the AO , but no penalty was levied. The relevant portion of the order

SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO OP PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 429/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Surendranagar District Co. Op. Acit, Circle, Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Surendranagar-363035 Plot No.249, Phase 2 Gidc Market Yard Circle, Sursagar Dairy, Wadhwan Road, Surendranagar-363035 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : Heard On 09/10/2025, Refixed For Clarification On 03.11.2025 & Finally Heard On 02.02.2026 : 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

deduction of Dividend Income of Rs. 47,70,000/- u/s 80P(2)(d) earned from the investment in Co- operative Society. 5. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271

KLIN INDUSTRIES,SANDHA KHAMIDANA, JUNAGADH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

deduction u/s 80JJA of Rs.20,70,660/-. The scrutiny assessment for the year under consideration in the case of the assessee was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, on 23.12.2016, accepting the nil income. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act, after approval from the Jt. Commissioner of income tax, Range, Junagadh

KONARK OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in\nabove terms

deduction\nof excess depreciation and interest on amount borrowed for building which was\nincomplete. Therefore, we hold that penalty u/s. 271

SHRI BHAKTINAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO 3 (1) (1), RAJKOT

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.200/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Bhakti Nagar Co Operative Housing Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1) Society Ltd. (Bhaktinagar Circle, Meghani Rang Bhavan, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot) Rong Road, A D Vyas & Co, Charted Accounts, Kotecha Rajkot - 360001 Nagar Main Road, Opp Kotecha Girl’S School, Off Kalawad Road. Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas2363M (Appellant) (Respondent)

deduction and the same has been treated as income from other sources. The same is added back to the income of the assessee in the year under consideration by passing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the I.T. Act on 10.06.2019. Consequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271

SHRI HARESHBHAI J. FALDU,JUNAGADH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 219/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-2014 वष"

penalty u/s 271(l)(cJ in respect of undisclosed income referred to in Sec. 271AAA(1) of the Act. Hence, it is prayed that the additional ground being wholly legal in nature can be raised at any stage of proceedings and may kindly be admitted for adjudication in the interest of justice. 3. It was pleaded by the assessee

SHRI KANJIBHAI B. RANGANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

U/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 5,51,702/- without considering that there is no adequate time and opportunity although the assessee specifically requested for the same. The penalty needs deletion. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not bringing any cogent material justifying levy of penalty. The penalty needs deletion. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

M/S MKC INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANJAR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. In view of the facts that the proceedings have not crystallized no interference on this point is called for. 8.0 In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee

BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

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

Deducted at Source from rent, interest and contract receipts all amounting to Rs. 1,20,82,926/- is more than the tax demand and further the Return of Income resulting in a refund of Rs. 33,00,130/-. Therefore the assessee requested not to proceed with the any penal proceedings. 3.2. The above reply though reproduced in the assessment order

THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

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

Deducted at Source from rent, interest and contract receipts all amounting to Rs. 1,20,82,926/- is more than the tax demand and further the Return of Income resulting in a refund of Rs. 33,00,130/-. Therefore the assessee requested not to proceed with the any penal proceedings. 3.2. The above reply though reproduced in the assessment order

M/S. SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

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

deduction u/s.32AC was claimed, it is seen that no such explanation/bifurcation was available on record.\nThe ld.PCIT therefore held that the averments made by the AR during Revision proceedings have been dealt with and rebutted in seriatim, in the above mentioned paras. Even a cursory look to the SCN along with the Chart enclosed therein reveals that the AO failed

KANTILAL BABULAL SOLANKI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, JUNAGADH

In the result, the quantum appeal in ITA No

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

Penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2011-12. I.T.A No. 124/Rjt/2016 & 115/A/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Kantilal Babulal Solanki Vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual. For the Asst. Year

KANTILAL BABULAL SOLANKI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, JUNAGADH

In the result, the quantum appeal in ITA No

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

Penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2011-12. I.T.A No. 124/Rjt/2016 & 115/A/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Kantilal Babulal Solanki Vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual. For the Asst. Year