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

section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n18.\nThus, the proposal to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance\nmade on account of deeming provisions and on technical grounds is invalid and is\nstrongly objected.\"\n19.\nHowever, the assessing officer rejected the above submission of the\nassessee and held that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars

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

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

u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, on the above three items, the assessing officer issued, show cause notice dated 05.07.2019 to the assessee, to show cause, as to why an order imposing a penalty in respect of the additions confirmed above, should not be passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4 10

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, on the above three items, the assessing officer issued, show cause notice dated 05.07.2019 to the assessee, to show cause, as to why an order imposing a penalty in respect of the additions confirmed above, should not be passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income

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

10% of the receipts u/s 115A of the Act. Penalty u/s 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

JETHANAND ATMARAM DHANWANI,ADIPUR vs. ITO WARD - 1, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 51/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Jethanand Atmaram Dhanwani Vs. Ito, Ward - 1 Plot No. 368, Wd – 2/B, Adipur – Kutch-370205 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं.At/Pan/Gir No.: Afvpd8813Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. A.R. Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/06/2025

271 (1)(C) of the Income Tax Act 1961, the Assessing Officer, has initiated penalty on both limbs, that is, "furnished inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealed particulars of income" 10. However, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 21/12/2018, passed u/s 148 read with section

SHRI RAJNIKANT HARGOVINDDAS SANADIA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (3)(5), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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)

section 143(1) and not for suppression of income, which was subject to adjudication by the appellate authorities. Therefore, considering the factual matrix of the case, I find no merit to interfere with the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s. 271

SHRI RAJNIKANT HARGOVINDDAS SANADIA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (3)(5), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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)

section 143(1) and not for suppression of income, which was subject to adjudication by the appellate authorities. Therefore, considering the factual matrix of the case, I find no merit to interfere with the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s. 271

M/S. UNITED ENGINEERS, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty proceedings can be initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the present case, the assessee has filed the income tax return under the provisions of section 153C of the Act declaring income of Rs. 4,43,340.00 which was accepted in the assessment framed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act vide

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment I.T.A No. 130 to 134/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 Shreenathji Developers vs. ITO Year (A.Y) 2016-17. As common issue of Penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) is involved in all the five cases and facts are identical

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment I.T.A No. 130 to 134/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 Shreenathji Developers vs. ITO Year (A.Y) 2016-17. As common issue of Penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) is involved in all the five cases and facts are identical

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment I.T.A No. 130 to 134/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 Shreenathji Developers vs. ITO Year (A.Y) 2016-17. As common issue of Penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) is involved in all the five cases and facts are identical

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment I.T.A No. 130 to 134/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 Shreenathji Developers vs. ITO Year (A.Y) 2016-17. As common issue of Penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) is involved in all the five cases and facts are identical

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment I.T.A No. 130 to 134/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 Shreenathji Developers vs. ITO Year (A.Y) 2016-17. As common issue of Penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) is involved in all the five cases and facts are identical

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)

section 271(1) of the Act. The levy of penalty is not justified. 2. Without prejudice to ground no 1, the levy of penalty @ Rs 3,18,310/- is too heavy arbitrary and not warranted by the facts of the case. 6. Ld. Counsel Mr. R.D. Lalchandani appearing for the assessee submitted that in assessee’s own case

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

10. The learned CIT(A), by way of passing separate penalty orders, confirmed the various penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

10. The learned CIT(A), by way of passing separate penalty orders, confirmed the various penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

10. The learned CIT(A), by way of passing separate penalty orders, confirmed the various penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

10. The learned CIT(A), by way of passing separate penalty orders, confirmed the various penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

10. The learned CIT(A), by way of passing separate penalty orders, confirmed the various penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s