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

2) Deemed rent of more than one properties, reflected in the Balance\nSheet Rs.1,80,000/-\n(3) Disallowance of payment of commission to Shri Rajesh Bhatt :\nRs.3,00,000/-\n\nIn order to levy penalty, u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, on the above three\nitems, the assessing officer issued, show cause notice dated 05.07.2019 to the\nassessee

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

2) Deemed rent of more than one properties, reflected in the Balance\nSheet Rs.1,80,000/-\n(3) Disallowance of payment of commission to Shri Rajesh Bhatt :\nRs.3,00,000/-\n9. In order to levy penalty, u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, on the above three\nitems, the assessing officer issued, show cause notice dated 05.07.2019 to the\nassessee

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

2) Deemed rent of more than one properties, reflected in the Balance\nSheet Rs.1,80,000/-\n(3) Disallowance of payment of commission to Shri Rajesh Bhatt :\nRs.3,00,000/-\n9.\nIn order to levy penalty, u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, on the above three\nitems, the assessing officer issued, show cause notice dated 05.07.2019 to the\nassessee

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

2) Deemed rent of more than one properties, reflected in the Balance\nSheet Rs.1,80,000/-\n(3) Disallowance of payment of commission to Shri Rajesh Bhatt :\nRs.3,00,000/-\n9.\nIn order to levy penalty, u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, on the above three\nitems, the assessing officer issued, show cause notice dated 05.07.2019 to the\nassessee

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

2) Deemed rent of more than one properties, reflected in the Balance\nSheet Rs.1,80,000/-\n(3) Disallowance of payment of commission to Shri Rajesh Bhatt :\nRs.3,00,000/-\n9.\nIn order to levy penalty, u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, on the above three\nitems, the assessing officer issued, show cause notice dated 05.07.2019 to the\nassessee

SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO OP PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 429/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Surendranagar District Co. Op. Acit, Circle, Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Surendranagar-363035 Plot No.249, Phase 2 Gidc Market Yard Circle, Sursagar Dairy, Wadhwan Road, Surendranagar-363035 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : Heard On 09/10/2025, Refixed For Clarification On 03.11.2025 & Finally Heard On 02.02.2026 : 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the interest charged u/s 234A/B/C of the I. T. Act, 1961. 8. That, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law.” 3. First, we shall take ground No. 1 and 2, above, raised

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

2)(1) and its income was taxable at the rate of 20 per cent and initiated reassessment and imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal after considering the facts, deleted the penalty and observed that since there is no change in the income declared and income assessed by the Assessing Officer, it cannot be said that there were

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)

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 & 272/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 5 Shri Rajnitkant Hargovinddas Sanadia vs. ITO for Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. In this case, as mentioned above, penalty was levied for a technical default

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)

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 & 272/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 5 Shri Rajnitkant Hargovinddas Sanadia vs. ITO for Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. In this case, as mentioned above, penalty was levied for a technical default

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)

Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake

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)

Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake

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)

Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake

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)

Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake

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)

Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake

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)

Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake

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)

Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake

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)

Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake

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)

Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and penalty orders passed by the assessing officer, u/s.271A, 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Since, the issue issues involved all thses appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been together and are being disposed by this consolidated order. For the sake

DILESHKUMAR GORDHANBHAI PATEL,ADIPUR vs. DCIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Vs. The Dcit, Patel Gandhidham Circle, Venus Plaster Industries, Plot Gandhidham (Kutch) No.89, Ward-2B, Adipur (Kutch) Pan : Aaopp 4484 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” For Short] Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 5,04,500/- Under Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Under:- “The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Cit(A)] Erred On Facts As Also In Law In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.5,04,500/- Levied U/S 271Aab Of The Act On The Ad-Hoc Disclosure Of Rs.50,45,000/-. The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271Aab Of The Act Is Totally Unjustified On Facts As Also In Law, May Kindly Be Deleted.” 3. The Primary Argument Of The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Against The Levy Of Penalty Was That The Income Surrendered By The Assessee During

2) No penalty under the provisions of section 270A or clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation