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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, has levied penalty on two\nlimbs viz. (i) Concealment of income and (ii) furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the\npenalty notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, should not contain both the\ncharges, that is, Concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, has levied penalty on two\nlimbs viz. (i) Concealment of income and (ii) furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the\npenalty notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, should not contain both the\ncharges, that is, Concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, has levied penalty on two\nlimbs viz. (i) Concealment of income and (ii) furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the\npenalty notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, should not contain both the\ncharges, that is, Concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, has levied penalty on two\nlimbs viz. (i) Concealment of income and (ii) furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the\npenalty notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, should not contain both the\ncharges, that is, Concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, has levied penalty on two\nlimbs viz. (i) Concealment of income and (ii) furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the\npenalty notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, should not contain both the\ncharges, that is, Concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate

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

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 or furnished inaccurate

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)

u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2.1. Similarly, the assessee failed to file Return of Income as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, when the total income of the assessee was Rs. 5,13,890/- relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. Hence Ld. A.O. initiated penalty

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)

u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2.1. Similarly, the assessee failed to file Return of Income as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, when the total income of the assessee was Rs. 5,13,890/- relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. Hence Ld. A.O. initiated penalty

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

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

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

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

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

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:

Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the penalty u/s

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

u/s 153D of the Act is mechanical approval. b) On the facts and under the circumstances of the case the penalty levied under section 271(1

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)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and the penalty levied for multiple defaults is directed to be deleted. In the case Smt. Rekha Rani v. DCIT 60 taxmann.com 131 (Delhi - Trib.), the Delhi ITAT held that penalty under section

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][c] and 271[1][b] of the Act. 2.1. During penalty proceedings u/s.271[1][b], notice dated 21.11.2019 was served on the assessee, fixing the case for hearing on 06-12-2019, but there was no response from the assessee. During the faceless assessment proceedings the assessee filed her reply in ITBA Portal and follows

RAMKRUPA COT-GIN CORPORATION,,AT. CHHAPRA, TAL.LODHIKA, DIST.RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-1 (2) (2),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

1 Rs. 10,000/- The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming order levying penalty U/s. 271(l)(b) of Rs. 10,000/-. The same needs cancellation. 2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in Rs. 10,000/- confirming order levying penalty U/s. 271(l)(b

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)

b) ITA No. 511/Rjt/2025 – A.Y. 2013-14 - Penalty u/s. 271A - Non- maintenance of books of account (c) ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 – A.Y. 2013-14 - Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) For Assessment Year – 2016-17, the assessee's quantum appeal, is as under: (a) Quantum appeal in ITA No.525/Rjt/2025 – A.Y. 2016-17 Page