ALIADAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,GIR SOMNATH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, , VERAVAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

penalty proceeding u/s. 254 rws 271(1)(c) of the Act. my kindly be deleted 5. Your Honor's appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal.” 3. Since the issues involved in all the years are identical, the appeals are being disposed

ALIDAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,GIR SOMNATH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, VERAVAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

penalty proceeding u/s. 254 rws 271(1)(c) of the Act. my kindly be deleted 5. Your Honor's appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal.” 3. Since the issues involved in all the years are identical, the appeals are being disposed

THE ITO, WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. M/S D. JEWEL,, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.350/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Income Tax Officer, M/S. D. Jewel, Ward-2, Vs. 1-Shishu Mangal Road, Junagadh. Gandhigram, Junagadh.

271(1)(c) of the Act for ₹ 81,39,539/- being hundred percent of tax sought to be evaded on account of concealment of particulars of income. 4. At the outset, we note that the learned CIT-A in his order dated 24th February 2020 has deleted the penalty by observing as under: As the underlying assessment order alongwith agitated