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

32,40,46,529- Rs.31,35,85,433), as against\naddition of Rs.32,40,46,529/- and granted relief to the assessee of\nRs.31,35,85,433/-. Therefore, assessing officer proposed to levy the penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of the Act, on Rs.1,04,61,096/-.\n12. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply before the\nassessing officer

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

32,40,46,529- Rs.31,35,85,433), as against\naddition of Rs.32,40,46,529/- and granted relief to the assessee of\nRs.31,35,85,433/-. Therefore, assessing officer proposed to levy the penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of the Act, on Rs.1,04,61,096/-.\n12. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply before the\nassessing officer

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

32,40,46,529- Rs.31,35,85,433), as against\naddition of Rs.32,40,46,529/- and granted relief to the assessee of\nRs.31,35,85,433/-. Therefore, assessing officer proposed to levy the penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of the Act, on Rs.1,04,61,096/-.\n\n12. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply before the\nassessing

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

32,40,46,529- Rs.31,35,85,433), as against\naddition of Rs.32,40,46,529/- and granted relief to the assessee of\nRs.31,35,85,433/-. Therefore, assessing officer proposed to levy the penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of the Act, on Rs.1,04,61,096/-.\n12. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply before the\nassessing officer

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

32,40,46,529- Rs.31,35,85,433), as against\naddition of Rs.32,40,46,529/- and granted relief to the assessee of\nRs.31,35,85,433/-. Therefore, assessing officer proposed to levy the penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of the Act, on Rs.1,04,61,096/-.\n12.\nDuring the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply before the\nassessing officer

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

u/s 44BBB of the Act .that while doing so there was no change in the Book results or other figures. • That similar benefit was availed by the assessee in subsequent years also A.Y 12-13 & 13-14 , and similar adverse inference drawn by the AO , but no penalty was levied. The relevant portion of the order

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)

penalty 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

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)

32. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee, in ITA No.514/Rjt/2025 – Α.Υ. 2014-15, and in ITA No.510/Rjt/2025 – A.Y. 2013-14, are also partly allowed, in above terms. 33. Now we shall take penalty appeals of the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 - Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and in ITA No.513/Rjt/2025

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)

32. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee, in ITA No.514/Rjt/2025 – Α.Υ. 2014-15, and in ITA No.510/Rjt/2025 – A.Y. 2013-14, are also partly allowed, in above terms. 33. Now we shall take penalty appeals of the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 - Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and in ITA No.513/Rjt/2025

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)

32. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee, in ITA No.514/Rjt/2025 – Α.Υ. 2014-15, and in ITA No.510/Rjt/2025 – A.Y. 2013-14, are also partly allowed, in above terms. 33. Now we shall take penalty appeals of the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 - Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and in ITA No.513/Rjt/2025

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)

32. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee, in ITA No.514/Rjt/2025 – Α.Υ. 2014-15, and in ITA No.510/Rjt/2025 – A.Y. 2013-14, are also partly allowed, in above terms. 33. Now we shall take penalty appeals of the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 - Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and in ITA No.513/Rjt/2025

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)

32. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee, in ITA No.514/Rjt/2025 – Α.Υ. 2014-15, and in ITA No.510/Rjt/2025 – A.Y. 2013-14, are also partly allowed, in above terms. 33. Now we shall take penalty appeals of the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 - Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and in ITA No.513/Rjt/2025

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)

32. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee, in ITA No.514/Rjt/2025 – Α.Υ. 2014-15, and in ITA No.510/Rjt/2025 – A.Y. 2013-14, are also partly allowed, in above terms. 33. Now we shall take penalty appeals of the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 - Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and in ITA No.513/Rjt/2025

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)

32. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee, in ITA No.514/Rjt/2025 – Α.Υ. 2014-15, and in ITA No.510/Rjt/2025 – A.Y. 2013-14, are also partly allowed, in above terms. 33. Now we shall take penalty appeals of the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 - Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and in ITA No.513/Rjt/2025

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)

32. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee, in ITA No.514/Rjt/2025 – Α.Υ. 2014-15, and in ITA No.510/Rjt/2025 – A.Y. 2013-14, are also partly allowed, in above terms. 33. Now we shall take penalty appeals of the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 - Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and in ITA No.513/Rjt/2025

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)

32. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee, in ITA No.514/Rjt/2025 – Α.Υ. 2014-15, and in ITA No.510/Rjt/2025 – A.Y. 2013-14, are also partly allowed, in above terms. 33. Now we shall take penalty appeals of the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 - Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and in ITA No.513/Rjt/2025

KONARK OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in\nabove terms

section 271(1)(c)\n9.2 We note that the Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi\nITAT in case of\nLala Harbhagwan Dass Memorial & Dr. Prem Hospital P. LTd. v. ITO (23\ntaxmann.com 32) wherein the AO leived the penalty u/s

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of 44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) 3. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of charging the interest u/s.234 A/B/C

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of 44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) 3. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of charging the interest u/s.234 A/B/C