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

search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act, was\ncarried out at the residential, as well as business premises of the assessee, on\n20.05.2013. Thereafter, in response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, dated\n10.10.2013, the assessee filed return of income, on 08.08.2014, declaring total\nincome of Rs.2,66,40,980/-. Accordingly, in this case, assessment u/s

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

search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act, was\ncarried out at the residential, as well as business premises of the assessee, on\n20.05.2013. Thereafter, in response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, dated\n10.10.2013, the assessee filed return of income, on 08.08.2014, declaring total\nincome of Rs.2,66,40,980/-. Accordingly, in this case, assessment u/s

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

search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act, was\ncarried out at the residential, as well as business premises of the assessee, on\n20.05.2013. Thereafter, in response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, dated\n10.10.2013, the assessee filed return of income, on 08.08.2014, declaring total\nincome of Rs.2,66,40,980/-. Accordingly, in this case, assessment u/s

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

search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act, was\ncarried out at the residential, as well as business premises of the assessee, on\n20.05.2013. Thereafter, in response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, dated\n10.10.2013, the assessee filed return of income, on 08.08.2014, declaring total\nincome of Rs.2,66,40,980/-. Accordingly, in this case, assessment u/s

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

search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act, was\ncarried out at the residential, as well as business premises of the assessee, on\n20.05.2013. Thereafter, in response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, dated\n10.10.2013, the assessee filed return of income, on 08.08.2014, declaring total\nincome of Rs.2,66,40,980/-. Accordingly, in this case, assessment u/s

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"

271(1)(c) as held the Hon’ble supreme court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processers reported in 306 ITR 227 are civil proceeding therefore establishment of willful attempt/mens-rea is not necessary to levy penalty. Further, the income was found during the search, had the search not been carried out, the income could have been concealed. Thus

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)

271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5 is reproduced as under: "15. Insofar as the alleged failure on the part of the assessee to specify in the statement under section 132(4) of the Act regarding the manner in which such income has been derived, suffice it to state that when the statement is being recorded by the authorized officer

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)

271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5 is reproduced as under: "15. Insofar as the alleged failure on the part of the assessee to specify in the statement under section 132(4) of the Act regarding the manner in which such income has been derived, suffice it to state that when the statement is being recorded by the authorized officer

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 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and heard together, and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').\n2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and heard together, and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter\nreferred to as 'the Act').\n2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and\nidentical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and\nheard together, and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of\nconvenience and brevity

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter\nreferred to as 'the Act').\n2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and\nidentical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and\nheard together, and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of\nconvenience and brevity

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter\nreferred to as 'the Act').\n2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and\nidentical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and\nheard together, and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of\nconvenience and brevity

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter\nreferred to as 'the Act').\n2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and\nidentical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and\nheard together, and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of\nconvenience and brevity

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter\nreferred to as 'the Act').\n2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and\nidentical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and\nheard together, and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of\nconvenience and brevity

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter\nreferred to as 'the Act').\n2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and\nidentical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and\nheard together, and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of\nconvenience and brevity

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter\nreferred to as 'the Act').\n2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and\nidentical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and\nheard together, and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of\nconvenience and brevity

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter\nreferred to as 'the Act').\n2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and\nidentical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and\nheard together, and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of\nconvenience and brevity

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of 44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) 3. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of charging the interest u/s.234 A/B/C