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,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

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

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)

19. Since the order of the Assessing Officer has been quashed by us in ITA No.515/RJT/2025, for assessment year 2015-16, therefore, various penalties imposed by the assessing officer on the assessee for assessment year 2015-16, such as, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s

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)

19. Since the order of the Assessing Officer has been quashed by us in ITA No.515/RJT/2025, for assessment year 2015-16, therefore, various penalties imposed by the assessing officer on the assessee for assessment year 2015-16, such as, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s

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)

19. Since the order of the Assessing Officer has been quashed by us in ITA No.515/RJT/2025, for assessment year 2015-16, therefore, various penalties imposed by the assessing officer on the assessee for assessment year 2015-16, such as, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s

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)

19. Since the order of the Assessing Officer has been quashed by us in ITA No.515/RJT/2025, for assessment year 2015-16, therefore, various penalties imposed by the assessing officer on the assessee for assessment year 2015-16, such as, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s

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)

19. Since the order of the Assessing Officer has been quashed by us in ITA No.515/RJT/2025, for assessment year 2015-16, therefore, various penalties imposed by the assessing officer on the assessee for assessment year 2015-16, such as, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s

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)

19. Since the order of the Assessing Officer has been quashed by us in ITA No.515/RJT/2025, for assessment year 2015-16, therefore, various penalties imposed by the assessing officer on the assessee for assessment year 2015-16, such as, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s

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)

19. Since the order of the Assessing Officer has been quashed by us in ITA No.515/RJT/2025, for assessment year 2015-16, therefore, various penalties imposed by the assessing officer on the assessee for assessment year 2015-16, such as, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s

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)

19. Since the order of the Assessing Officer has been quashed by us in ITA No.515/RJT/2025, for assessment year 2015-16, therefore, various penalties imposed by the assessing officer on the assessee for assessment year 2015-16, such as, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s

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)

19. Since the order of the Assessing Officer has been quashed by us in ITA No.515/RJT/2025, for assessment year 2015-16, therefore, various penalties imposed by the assessing officer on the assessee for assessment year 2015-16, such as, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s

SMT. BIJAL DARSHITBHAI PUJARA,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 292/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2 Smt. Bijal Darshitbhai Pujara vs. Dy. CIT 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in - 1. Confirming Penalty

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

2. First we take ITA No/305/Rjt/2018 for A.Y. 2012-13 for the purpose of adjudication. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding levy of penalty of Rs.1,33,002/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground

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

2. The petitioner has challenged notices issued under section 148 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 (for short \"the Act\") for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 under the old\nregime in view of TOLA without issuing notice under section 148A(b) as required to be\nissued with effect from 01.04.2021.\n3. Notice under section 148 under Taxation and Other Laws

ANANDKUMAR MANSUKHLAL PATEL,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 190/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2007-2008 Shri Anandkumar Mansukhlal Income Tax Officer, Changela, Vs. Ward-3(1)(2), Rajkot. C/O. M/S. Anand Agencies, Dhebar Road, Opp. Mehta Petrol Pump, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Acgpp8605G

19,286/- declared by the appellant." 6.2 The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and the appellant is in appeal before ITAT, which is still pending. Consequently, the AO levied penalty of Rs.46,105/- u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the appellant. 6.3 The appellant is now in appeal against levy of penalty u/s

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:

19 ACIT Vs. Shri Vicky Balkrishna Mehta AY : 2004-05 there was balance of Rs.1 crore, that the bank account with ABN AMRO Bank, Geneva represented assets located outside India within the meaning of Explanation 2(d) to section 147 of the Act and accordingly as per provisions of section 149(1)(c) notice u/s. 148 could be issued

UTSAV COTFAB P. LTD.,JETPUR vs. THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (3), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Mrs. Madhumita Roy(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Utsav Cotfab Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R Survey No. 603P/3/P/1, Ward- 1(2)(3), Khirsara Road, Nr. Jodia Hanuman Rajkot Mandir, Jetpur, Rajkot – 360370 Pan : Aabcu 3825 F अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.07.2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

271(1)(b) of the act Id. AO entirely ignored the factual aspects and the existence of reasonable reasons in this case. 1.3 The reasonable reasons for non-compliance to statutory notices issued u/s. 142(1)of the act are submitted hereunder: 4 Utsav Cotfab Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO AY : 2014-15 1.3.1 The appellant-company has started to experience

M/S. GUPTA GLOBAL EXIM PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act of Rs.40,90,779/-.” 15. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in imposing the penalty of Rs. 40,90,779.00 under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. The assessee in the year under consideration has declared the loss