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 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-16, in the case of same assessee, should also be deleted, as, now, there is no base to impose these penalties

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 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-16, in the case of same assessee, should also be deleted, as, now, there is no base to impose these penalties

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 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-16, in the case of same assessee, should also be deleted, as, now, there is no base to impose these penalties

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 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-16, in the case of same assessee, should also be deleted, as, now, there is no base to impose these penalties

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 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-16, in the case of same assessee, should also be deleted, as, now, there is no base to impose these penalties

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271A of\nthe Income-tax Act, 1961, was initiated for failure to maintain books of account\nas mandated by section 44AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n8. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, in quantum proceedings, and\npenalty proceedings, [u/s 271(1)(c

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 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-16, in the case of same assessee, should also be deleted, as, now, there is no base to impose these penalties

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 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-16, in the case of same assessee, should also be deleted, as, now, there is no base to impose these penalties

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 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-16, in the case of same assessee, should also be deleted, as, now, there is no base to impose these penalties

JETHANAND ATMARAM DHANWANI,ADIPUR vs. ITO WARD - 1, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 51/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Jethanand Atmaram Dhanwani Vs. Ito, Ward - 1 Plot No. 368, Wd – 2/B, Adipur – Kutch-370205 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं.At/Pan/Gir No.: Afvpd8813Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. A.R. Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/06/2025

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in any manner and hence the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c

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

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, to show cause, as to why an order imposing a penalty in respect of the\nadditions confirmed above, should not be passed under section

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c

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

1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer rejected assesses plea that its claim of returning income u/s 44BBB of the Act was a bonafide claim and the income assessed by the AO u/s 115JA of the Act was due to difference of opinion, noting that the penalty was initiated on the ground that the assessee was aware

M/S SHREE RAJMOTI INDS.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE A. C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

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

u/s 271 (1) (C). That is clearly no the intendment of the Legislature. 8.1. Following the above Supreme Court Judgment, the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Intas Pharma Ltd. reported in [2022] 138 taxmann.com 474 (Gujarat) held as follows: “Section 271(1)(c), read with section 32, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty

SHRI HARESHBHAI J. FALDU,JUNAGADH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 219/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-2014 वष"

Penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) of Act by the AO for concealment of Income is hereby confirmed and upheld. GOA no. 1 is dismissed. GOA no. 2 is routine and general in nature. 10. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 11. The learned AR before us through additional