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) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\n\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, relates to penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and appeal

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

section 40(a)(ia) of\nthe Act, for non-deduction of TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n11\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions may be good but not for penalty. The\nassessee has relied on the various

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) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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)

section u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for non- appearance dated 12-04-2018 and levied penalty totaling to " 40

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

40,250/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.\n3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Private Limited Company has\nactively engaged in the business of import and trading of timbers during the year\nunder appeal. The return of income of the appellant company for A.Y. 2012-13\nwas e-fled on 27.08.2012 declaring total

SANJAYKUMAR VALLABHBHAI PAN (HUF),RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.958/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sanjaykumar Vallabhbhai Pan (Huf) The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) बनाम 703-, Pyramid Tower Rajkot. Bansi Park Vs. Amin Marg Rajkot 360 001. Pan : Aaohs 9548 F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

u/s 271(1)(c) of the, Act was levied by the assessing officer, ( respect of estimated confirmed addition of Rs.19,68,993/-), vide order dated 07.03.2018 for AY 2012-13. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who has confirmed the penalty under section 271

KALPATARU CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for the failure of the assessee to comply with notices. Finally, the AO imposed the penalty for "10,000/- for each default committed by the assessee aggregating to Rs. 40,000/- as discussed above under the provisions of section

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

40) of the Act was made u/s u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, provisions of clause (c) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case andl have reasons to believe that the amount of Rs.25,00,000/-being sum as unexplained cash transaction[also violation of section 40A(3) of the Act] is chargeable

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

40) of the Act was made u/s u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, provisions of clause (c) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case andl have reasons to believe that the amount of Rs.25,00,000/-being sum as unexplained cash transaction[also violation of section 40A(3) of the Act] is chargeable

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

40) of the Act was made u/s u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, provisions of clause (c) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case andl have reasons to believe that the amount of Rs.25,00,000/-being sum as unexplained cash transaction[also violation of section 40A(3) of the Act] is chargeable

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

40) of the Act was made u/s u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, provisions of clause (c) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case andl have reasons to believe that the amount of Rs.25,00,000/-being sum as unexplained cash transaction[also violation of section 40A(3) of the Act] is chargeable

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

40) of the Act was made u/s u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, provisions of clause (c) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case andl have reasons to believe that the amount of Rs.25,00,000/-being sum as unexplained cash transaction[also violation of section 40A(3) of the Act] is chargeable

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

40) of the Act was made u/s u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, provisions of clause (c) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case andl have reasons to believe that the amount of Rs.25,00,000/-being sum as unexplained cash transaction[also violation of section 40A(3) of the Act] is chargeable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

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

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

40) of the Act was made u/s u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, provisions of clause (c) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case andl have reasons to believe that the amount of Rs.25,00,000/-being sum as unexplained cash transaction[also violation of section 40A(3) of the Act] is chargeable

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

40) of the Act was made u/s u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, provisions of clause (c) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case andl have reasons to believe that the amount of Rs.25,00,000/-being sum as unexplained cash transaction[also violation of section 40A(3) of the Act] is chargeable

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

40) of the Act was made u/s u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, provisions of clause (c) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case andl have reasons to believe that the amount of Rs.25,00,000/-being sum as unexplained cash transaction[also violation of section 40A(3) of the Act] is chargeable

THE ASSISTANT 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

40) of the Act was made u/s u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, provisions of clause (c) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case andl have reasons to believe that the amount of Rs.25,00,000/-being sum as unexplained cash transaction[also violation of section 40A(3) of the Act] is chargeable