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

3) rw.s. 153A of the Act, dated 31.07.2019 and\nInitiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, in the first\nappeal, the CIT(A) had confirmed the said additions. Thereafter, the Hon'ble\nITAT had also confirmed the said additions made by the assessing officer.\nAccordingly, the assessing officer had levied penalty u/s 271

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

3) rw.s. 153A of the Act, dated 31.07.2019 and\nInitiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, in the first\nappeal, the CIT(A) had confirmed the said additions. Thereafter, the Hon'ble\nITAT had also confirmed the said additions made by the assessing officer.\nAccordingly, the assessing officer had levied penalty u/s 271

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

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice\nissued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which\nlimb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty

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

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice\nissued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which\nlimb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty

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

3) rw.s. 153A of the Act, dated 31.07.2019 and\nInitiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, in the first\nappeal, the CIT(A) had confirmed the said additions. Thereafter, the Hon'ble\nITAT had also confirmed the said additions made by the assessing officer.\nAccordingly, the assessing officer had levied penalty 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

14. Coming to the 2nd fold of contention of the learned AR that the assessment framed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law and therefore no 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 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

3)" CIT v. Praveen B. Gada (HUF).- (2011) 244 CTR 463 - Madhya Pradesh HC: DCIT (Intl.Taxn.) vs. M/s.Korea South East Power Co.Ltd. AY : 2011-12 [7] "Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income-Assessment year 2004-05- Whether in absence of any independent finding by Assessing Officer that assessee concealed his income

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)

14,42,470/- vide order dated 26-12-2018. 2.1. Since the assessee has failed to comply with the notice issued u/s. 142(1) dated 18-12-2018 in spite of service of notice to the assessee, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued a show cause Notice u/s. 274 r.w.s

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)

14,42,470/- vide order dated 26-12-2018. 2.1. Since the assessee has failed to comply with the notice issued u/s. 142(1) dated 18-12-2018 in spite of service of notice to the assessee, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued a show cause Notice u/s. 274 r.w.s

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

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)

3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was initiated for concealment of the particulars of income by the assessing officer. The penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was initiated for failure to furnish particulars of return of income. Further

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)

3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was initiated for concealment of the particulars of income by the assessing officer. The penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was initiated for failure to furnish particulars of return of income. Further

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)

3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was initiated for concealment of the particulars of income by the assessing officer. The penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was initiated for failure to furnish particulars of return of income. Further

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)

3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was initiated for concealment of the particulars of income by the assessing officer. The penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was initiated for failure to furnish particulars of return of income. Further

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)

3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was initiated for concealment of the particulars of income by the assessing officer. The penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was initiated for failure to furnish particulars of return of income. Further