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

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 officer, the relevant portion of the assessee's submission is reproduced\nas under:\n\n\"6. As regard the levy of penalty on addition

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

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, the relevant portion of the assessee's submission is reproduced\nas under:\n"6. As regard the levy of penalty on addition retained

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

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, the relevant portion of the assessee's submission is reproduced\nas under:\n"6. As regard the levy of penalty on addition retained

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

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 relevant portion of the assessee's submission is reproduced\nas under:\n\"6. As regard the levy of penalty on addition retained

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

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, the relevant portion of the assessee's submission is reproduced\nas under:\n\"6. As regard the levy of penalty on addition retained

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)

35. Therefore, respectfully following the above binding precedent, in the case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd (supra), we delete the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 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)

35. Therefore, respectfully following the above binding precedent, in the case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd (supra), we delete the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 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)

35. Therefore, respectfully following the above binding precedent, in the case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd (supra), we delete the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 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)

35. Therefore, respectfully following the above binding precedent, in the case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd (supra), we delete the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 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)

35. Therefore, respectfully following the above binding precedent, in the case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd (supra), we delete the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 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)

35. Therefore, respectfully following the above binding precedent, in the case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd (supra), we delete the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 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)

35. Therefore, respectfully following the above binding precedent, in the case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd (supra), we delete the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 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)

35. Therefore, respectfully following the above binding precedent, in the case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd (supra), we delete the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 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)

35. Therefore, respectfully following the above binding precedent, in the case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd (supra), we delete the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 36. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 512/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 and in ITA No.513/Rjt/2025

YESHA DHIRAJLAL THAKRAR,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 29.01.2022 (Din: Itba/Pnl/F/271(1)(B)/2021-22/1039193062(1)) Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer,Nfac, Delhi(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(B) Of The 1961 Act Levying Penalty Of Rs. 30,000/- Against The Assesse For Non Compliance Of Three Notices Dated 27.07.2021, 06.08.2021 & 16.08.2021 Issued During Reassessment Proceedings , All Three Aforesaid Notices U/S 142(1) Of The 1961 Act. The Proceedings Were Conducted Before Division Bench Through E-Court Through Virtual Hearing Mode.

Section 148 was challenged on legal ground. It was submitted that if legal ground is upheld by ld. CIT(A) and reassessment proceedings are held to be bad in law, then the whole reassessment order will have to be quashed and these penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) will Yesha Dhirjla Thakarar v. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Assessment Year

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

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

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