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

2) of the\nIncome tax Act, 1961.\nNO.\ndated\n\nhave concealed the particulars of your income by furnishing inaccurate particulars\nof such income.\n\nYou are hereby requested to appear before me on 20/07/2017 at 10.30 A.M. and\nshow cause as to why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section\n271

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

2) of the\nIncome tax Act, 1961.\nNO.\ndated\nhave concealed the particulars of your income by furnishing inaccurate particulars\nof such income.\nYou are hereby requested to appear before me on 20/07/2017 at 10.30 A.M. and\nshow cause as to why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section\n271

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

2) of the\nIncome tax Act, 1961.\nNO.\ndated\nhave concealed the particulars of your income by furnishing inaccurate particulars\nof such income.\nYou are hereby requested to appear before me on 20/07/2017 at 10.30 A.M. and\nshow cause as to why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section\n271

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

2) of the\nIncome tax Act, 1961.\nNO.\ndated\nhave concealed the particulars of your income by furnishing inaccurate particulars\nof such income.\nYou are hereby requested to appear before me on 20/07/2017 at 10.30 A.M. and\nshow cause as to why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section\n271

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

2) of the\nIncome tax Act, 1961.\nNO.\ndated\nhave concealed the particulars of your income by furnishing inaccurate particulars\nof such income.\nYou are hereby requested to appear before me on 20/07/2017 at 10.30 A.M. and\nshow cause as to why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section\n271

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

2,02,459/- to the total income of the assessee in the assessment framed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27 December 2016. The AO in the assessment order initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the charge of concealment of income which came to be confirmed

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

2,02,459/- to the total income of the assessee in the assessment framed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27 December 2016. The AO in the assessment order initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the charge of concealment of income which came to be confirmed

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

2,02,459/- to the total income of the assessee in the assessment framed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27 December 2016. The AO in the assessment order initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the charge of concealment of income which came to be confirmed

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

2,02,459/- to the total income of the assessee in the assessment framed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27 December 2016. The AO in the assessment order initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the charge of concealment of income which came to be confirmed

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

2,02,459/- to the total income of the assessee in the assessment framed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27 December 2016. The AO in the assessment order initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the charge of concealment of income which came to be confirmed

SHRI SHAMJIBHAI SADHABHAI KANGAD,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , RAJKOT

penalty or any harsh\naction under the Income tax Act or any other law shall be initiated by the\nDepartment or any other department on such voluntary offered ad-hoc estimated\nbusiness income. The assessee submitted that source of cash and gold found /\nseized during the course of search has satisfactorily been explained and hence,\nthere is no case

SHRI BHARATBHUSHAN KISHANLAL GUPTA,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ITO- INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lalsaini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 269/Rjt/2019 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Bharatbhushan Kishanlal Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Gupta, (International Taxation) Prop. Of Aqua Shipping, Suit - Gandhidham – 370210 100, Grain Merchant Association Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 297, Wd – 12B, Gandhidham – 370001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afcpg3849N (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, mechanically. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the charging of interest u/s. 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act, when addition itself not sustainable.” 3. Additional ground raised by the assessee, is as follows: "The Order passed u/s