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)

144 r.w.s. 147. However, this will not grant the appellant immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 271F. As per section 3 of Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, the declarant would be provided immunity only for penalty levied on disputed tax, in case he opts I.T.A No. 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)

144 r.w.s. 147. However, this will not grant the appellant immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 271F. As per section 3 of Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, the declarant would be provided immunity only for penalty levied on disputed tax, in case he opts I.T.A No. 271

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)

u/s. 144 assessment order is deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grievance made out by the assessee is found to be genuine and reasonable. In the above circumstances the levy of penalty under Section 271

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)

u/s. 144 assessment order is deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grievance made out by the assessee is found to be genuine and reasonable. In the above circumstances the levy of penalty under Section 271

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)

u/s. 144 assessment order is deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grievance made out by the assessee is found to be genuine and reasonable. In the above circumstances the levy of penalty under Section 271

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)

u/s. 144 assessment order is deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grievance made out by the assessee is found to be genuine and reasonable. In the above circumstances the levy of penalty under Section 271

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)

u/s. 144 assessment order is deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grievance made out by the assessee is found to be genuine and reasonable. In the above circumstances the levy of penalty under Section 271

M/S. DHARTI TREDERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

In the result, the penalty for non-appearance is directed to be restricted to the first default on part of the assessee in not complying with the notice of hearing i

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

144 of the Act, on the basis of material available on record. The AO passed penalty under section u/s 271

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

271(1) (c) of the Act.\n36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y.\n2013-14 and in ITA No.513/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2014-15, are allowed.\n37. Now we shall take, remaining penalty appeal of the assessee in ITA,\nNo.511/Rjt/2025, for A.Y. 2013-14, Penalty u/s. 271A of the Act, on account

YESHA DHIRAJLAL THAKRAR,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 29.01.2022 (Din: Itba/Pnl/F/271(1)(B)/2021-22/1039193062(1)) Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer,Nfac, Delhi(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(B) Of The 1961 Act Levying Penalty Of Rs. 30,000/- Against The Assesse For Non Compliance Of Three Notices Dated 27.07.2021, 06.08.2021 & 16.08.2021 Issued During Reassessment Proceedings , All Three Aforesaid Notices U/S 142(1) Of The 1961 Act. The Proceedings Were Conducted Before Division Bench Through E-Court Through Virtual Hearing Mode.

144 read with Section 144B of the 1961 Act, making an addition of Rs. 1,90,50,000/- against the assessee u/s 56(2)(vii) of the 1961 Act as an unexplained investment. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee u/s 271

KLIN INDUSTRIES,SANDHA KHAMIDANA, JUNAGADH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, on 31.10.2019 at a total income of Rs.20,70,660/- and penalty proceedings was initiated. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and relying upon the various judgments, the assessing officer had concluded that the case of the assessee was a fit case for levying of penalty u/s 271

PREMILABA RAMDE vs. INH JADEJA,RAJKOTVS.THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 271[1][b] for non- compliance of statutory notice issued u/s.142[1] of the Act and thereby imposed penalty for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. 2.3. Aggrieved against the same the assessee filed an appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The Ld CIT[A] after considering in detailed the submissions of the assessee and deliberate non-compliance

SHRI KANJIBHAI B. RANGANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 148 no return was filed. Despite various opportunities provided to the appellant no details/clarifications were provided to the AO during reassessment proceedings. The action of the AO has also been confirmed to the extent of Rs. 17,03,805/- by the Kanjibhai Bhimjibhai Rangani vs. ITO Asst.Year –2007-08 then CIT(A)-IV, Rajkot. Under these circumstances

KAJAL NIMISHBHAI SINOJIA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(1)(1) , RKT, RAJKOT

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.664/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia Vs. Income-Tax Officer, B-21 Shreeji Haridwar Society,Nr Ito Ward – 1(1)(1), Gokuldham, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajkot - 360004 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bsups2455J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09 / 07/2025

144 on dated 18/05/2023 While making an assessment a penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) were initiated in the Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia assessment order. The assessment order speak that the appellant has failed complied with statutory notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act para 3.4.1 of the order is reproduce: “ During the course of assessment proceedings notices u/s

KALPATARU CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for the failure of the assessee to comply with notices. Finally, the AO imposed the penalty for "10,000/- for each default committed by the assessee aggregating to Rs. 40,000/- as discussed above under the provisions of section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before

SUBHAS HANSARAJ NANDU,BHACHAU, KUTCH vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hybrid Hearing) Assessment Year: (2010-11) Subhas Hansaraj Nandu Vs. National Faceless Assessment Opp:Shambhu Maharaj Bungalow Centre, Delhi. Bhachau, Gujarat. Pan : Afrpn 0720 J (Assessee) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.Dr

u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and disallowing Rs. 54,950/- on account of interest paid to the depositors. The above narrated facts clearly state that the initial onus was duly discharged by the assessee, during the assessment proceedings and then the onus was upon the department to collect all the details from the third parties. Since the department

KANTILAL BABULAL SOLANKI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, JUNAGADH

In the result, the quantum appeal in ITA No

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

section 144 and Penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating

KANTILAL BABULAL SOLANKI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, JUNAGADH

In the result, the quantum appeal in ITA No

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

section 144 and Penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating

VIJAYABEN RAMBHAI VAJA,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and I.T.A Nos. 281 to 284/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Smt. Vijayaben Rambhai Vaja Vs. ITO Penalties levied u/s. 271