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

Disallowance of hedging loss Rs.79,37,455/-.\n\n6.\nIn respect of above additions, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, was also

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

disallowance made under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n18. Thus, the proposal to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance

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

disallowance made under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n18. Thus, the proposal to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance

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

disallowance made under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n18. Thus, the proposal to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance

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)

disallowances were made, the A.O. namely dividend income received from Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., while doing regular assessment and reassessment proceedings. Though the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars for the Assessment Year 2011-12, however not levied penalty. For other assessment years, penalty proceedings were not even initiated. Thus the Ld. Counsel relying upon

SHRI LAJAI SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI,LAJAI vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

disallow the claim of u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act on rental income. The assessee claimed statutory deduction u/s. 24 of the Act and accepted the addition of Rs. 1,06,575/- as the rental income. The A.O. initiated penalty proceedings 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

271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the AO noting that despite the assessee being aware of the nature of receipts being FTS, yet it had wrongly returned the same u/s 44BBB of the Act. Taking up Ground No.1 challenging the deletion of penalty by the Ld.CIT(A) , we do not find any merit in the same

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

disallowed by the assessing officer cannot automatically penalized u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon`ble Supreme Court, in the case of in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), held that penalty

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

disallowance. During the course of penalty\nproceedings, the appellant sought an adjournment for submitting its reply for the\nproposed penalty due to pre-occupation in finalization of audits and filing of time-\nbaring returns.\nHowever, the Ld. AO has levied the penalty of Rs.40,250/- u/s. 271

DINESHCHANDRA N. SHAH,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5),, JAMNAGAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of wrong claim of expenses. Subsequently, the AO has levied the penalty of Rs. 18,390/- u/s. 271(l)(c) on these

RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,,RAJKOT vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), , RAJKOT

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us In This Regard Reads As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Rajkot-1 Has Erred In Confirming The Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 271(L)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Imposing A Penalty Of Rs. 18,50,900 On The Appellant Despite The Fact That The Claim For The Deduction Was Bona-Fide, The Details Furnished For The Claim For Allowance Were Not Found To Be Inaccurate & That There Was No Deliberate Attempt To Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars On The Part Of The Appellant Assesse. The Ao'S Action Being Erroneous On Facts & In Law, The Appellant Prays That The Penalty Of Rs. 18,50,900 Be Deleted..

disallowed in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act holding that such provisions for Standard assets do not qualify for deduction under the section as it relates only to bad and doubtful debts . Subsequently penalty u/s 271

M/S. GUPTA GLOBAL EXIM PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act of Rs.40,90,779/-.” 15. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in imposing the penalty of Rs. 40,90,779.00 under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. The assessee in the year under consideration has declared the loss

JAGANI VINODRAI GOPALDAS (HUF),RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (4),, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 59/Rjt/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Jagani Vinodrai Gopaldas Huf, Income-Tax Officer, 62 – Suraj Appartment, Vs. Ward-1(2)(4), No.1 Shroff Road, Rajkot. Opp. Church, Nfac, Delhi Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaahj9710N

penalty was to be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same can be under the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 7.1 Moving further, we note that it is a trite law that every addition or disallowance

M/S. ANUKUL CONSTRUCTION CO.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

disallowance to the extent of Rs.1,08,880/- in respect of no charge interest on loan and advances given to its partners. The Assessing Officer subsequently initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the Assessing Officer has passed penalty order in respect of concealment of particulars of income to the extent of Rs.3

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

U/s. 271(l)(c) has been imposed. 3. Also in citation of Asst Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dhariwal Industries Ltd, (ITAT Pune) income Tax Appeal no 582/PN/2009, Date of Pronouncement A.Y. 2012-13 2 12.06.2015 it was observed that since No penalty was levied by the A.O, on similar disallowance

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 148 no return was filed. Despite various opportunities provided to the appellant no details/clarifications were provided to the AO during reassessment proceedings. The action of the AO has also been confirmed to the extent of Rs. 17,03,805/- by the Kanjibhai Bhimjibhai Rangani vs. ITO Asst.Year –2007-08 then CIT(A)-IV, Rajkot. Under these circumstances

SUBHAS HANSARAJ NANDU,BHACHAU, KUTCH vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hybrid Hearing) Assessment Year: (2010-11) Subhas Hansaraj Nandu Vs. National Faceless Assessment Opp:Shambhu Maharaj Bungalow Centre, Delhi. Bhachau, Gujarat. Pan : Afrpn 0720 J (Assessee) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.Dr

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessing officer has initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.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)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee also took us through the paper-book page no. 67 and stated that the case under consideration was SHRI BHAKTINAGAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ITA NO. 200 & Co. 03/RJT/2024 (AY 2014-15) registered under old provision, that the fact, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that