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%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that even on estimated addition, the penalty should

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%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that even on estimated addition, the penalty should

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%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that even on estimated addition, the penalty should

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%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that even on estimated addition, the penalty should

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%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that even on estimated addition, the penalty should

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%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that even on estimated addition, the penalty should

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%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that even on estimated addition, the penalty should

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%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that even on estimated addition, the penalty should

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%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that even on estimated addition, the penalty should

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

JITENDRAKUMAR BHAILAL DODIYA,SAVARKUNDLA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), AMRELI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

10% is also purely on estimated basis and no solid proof / evidence for determining income as mentioned above are established. 1.5 Over and above amount of addition of Rs.1,40,841/- is totally on presumption and estimated basis. It is settled law no penalty in respect of addition made on estimated basis can be levied. The assessee relies

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 274 of the Act on account of concealment/furnishing inaccurate particular of income. 5. The assessee during the penalty proceedings contended that he failed to disclose the interest income in the income tax return inadvertently. 6. Similarly the assessee contended that he has actually incurred an expense of Rs. 24,612 on account of salary for the maintenance

M/S. DECENT METAL PRODUCTS,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 (1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore, the same is confirmed.” 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. ITA No. 139/Rjt/19 [Decent Metal Products vs. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 3 - 6. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

10 respectable witnesses in his defence before the Assessing Officer to establish the contents of the so called affidavit as true nor their affidavits were filed. Those two persons were the actual witnesses of the search proceedings and were from the same locality. Thus, the copy of the so called affidavit not supported by any evidence had no evidentiary value

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

10 respectable witnesses in his defence before the Assessing Officer to establish the contents of the so called affidavit as true nor their affidavits were filed. Those two persons were the actual witnesses of the search proceedings and were from the same locality. Thus, the copy of the so called affidavit not supported by any evidence had no evidentiary value

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

10 respectable witnesses in his defence before the Assessing Officer to establish the contents of the so called affidavit as true nor their affidavits were filed. Those two persons were the actual witnesses of the search proceedings and were from the same locality. Thus, the copy of the so called affidavit not supported by any evidence had no evidentiary value

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

10 respectable witnesses in his defence before the Assessing Officer to establish the contents of the so called affidavit as true nor their affidavits were filed. Those two persons were the actual witnesses of the search proceedings and were from the same locality. Thus, the copy of the so called affidavit not supported by any evidence had no evidentiary value

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

10 respectable witnesses in his defence before the Assessing Officer to establish the contents of the so called affidavit as true nor their affidavits were filed. Those two persons were the actual witnesses of the search proceedings and were from the same locality. Thus, the copy of the so called affidavit not supported by any evidence had no evidentiary value