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

271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income by furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of his income.\n18. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted the following\nwritten submission before the assessing officer, the relevant portion of the\nassessee's submission is reproduced as under:\n\"15. As regard the levy of penalty on disallowance commission paid

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

271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income by furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of his income.\n\n18. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted the following\nwritten submission before the assessing officer, the relevant portion of the\nassessee's submission is reproduced as under:\n\n\"15. As regard the levy of penalty on disallowance commission paid

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

271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income by furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of his income.\n18. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted the following\nwritten submission before the assessing officer, the relevant portion of the\nassessee's submission is reproduced as under:\n\"15. As regard the levy of penalty on disallowance commission paid

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

271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income by furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of his income.\n18. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted the following\nwritten submission before the assessing officer, the relevant portion of the\nassessee's submission is reproduced as under:\n\"15. As regard the levy of penalty on disallowance commission paid

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

271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income by furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of his income.\n18. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted the following\nwritten submission before the assessing officer, the relevant portion of the\nassessee's submission is reproduced as under:\n\"15. As regard the levy of penalty on disallowance commission paid

THE ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI VICKY BALKRISHNA MEHTA, RAJKOT

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Vicky Balkrishna Mehta, Income-Tax, 7Th Floor, Mansrovar Central Circle-2, Apartment, Royal Park, Rajkot Kalawad Road, Rajkot Pan : Agqpm 6495 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 22.01.2020 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2004-05. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated.” 9. As is evident from the above, on account of search action undertaken on the Mehta Group on 20.03.2012 which covered the assessee and his family, it 20 ACIT Vs. Shri Vicky Balkrishna Mehta AY : 2004-05 was found that they held undisclosed foreign accounts in various foreign banks outside India

M/S. SHREEDHAR CONSTRUCTION ,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD- 1 (3) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 542/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S. Shreedhar Construction, The Ito, Vs. 211, Divyam Complex Airodrome Ward-1(3), Road,Jamnagar-361006 ( Gujarat) Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclfs0395R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6. That, the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 3. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assessee, is a partnership- firm