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 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 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

SHRI KANJIBHAI B. RANGANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 148 no return was filed. Despite various opportunities provided to the appellant no details/clarifications were provided to the AO during reassessment proceedings. The action of the AO has also been confirmed to the extent of Rs. 17,03,805/- by the Kanjibhai Bhimjibhai Rangani vs. ITO Asst.Year –2007-08 then CIT(A)-IV, Rajkot. Under these circumstances

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

61. Now coming to the assessee’s penalty appeal in ITA No. 178/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2017–18. We have heard both the parties. We note that assessing officer imposed the penalty under section 270A of the Act for assessment 2017-18 at Rs. 48,79,274/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no penalty should be levied

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

61. Now coming to the assessee’s penalty appeal in ITA No. 178/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2017–18. We have heard both the parties. We note that assessing officer imposed the penalty under section 270A of the Act for assessment 2017-18 at Rs. 48,79,274/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no penalty should be levied

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

61. Now coming to the assessee’s penalty appeal in ITA No. 178/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2017–18. We have heard both the parties. We note that assessing officer imposed the penalty under section 270A of the Act for assessment 2017-18 at Rs. 48,79,274/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no penalty should be levied

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

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

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

61. Now coming to the assessee’s penalty appeal in ITA No. 178/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2017–18. We have heard both the parties. We note that assessing officer imposed the penalty under section 270A of the Act for assessment 2017-18 at Rs. 48,79,274/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no penalty should be levied

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

61. Now coming to the assessee’s penalty appeal in ITA No. 178/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2017–18. We have heard both the parties. We note that assessing officer imposed the penalty under section 270A of the Act for assessment 2017-18 at Rs. 48,79,274/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no penalty should be levied

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

61. Now coming to the assessee’s penalty appeal in ITA No. 178/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2017–18. We have heard both the parties. We note that assessing officer imposed the penalty under section 270A of the Act for assessment 2017-18 at Rs. 48,79,274/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no penalty should be levied

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

61. Now coming to the assessee’s penalty appeal in ITA No. 178/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2017–18. We have heard both the parties. We note that assessing officer imposed the penalty under section 270A of the Act for assessment 2017-18 at Rs. 48,79,274/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no penalty should be levied

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

61. Now coming to the assessee’s penalty appeal in ITA No. 178/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2017–18. We have heard both the parties. We note that assessing officer imposed the penalty under section 270A of the Act for assessment 2017-18 at Rs. 48,79,274/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no penalty should be levied

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

61. Now coming to the assessee’s penalty appeal in ITA No. 178/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2017–18. We have heard both the parties. We note that assessing officer imposed the penalty under section 270A of the Act for assessment 2017-18 at Rs. 48,79,274/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no penalty should be levied

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

61. Now coming to the assessee’s penalty appeal in ITA No. 178/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2017–18. We have heard both the parties. We note that assessing officer imposed the penalty under section 270A of the Act for assessment 2017-18 at Rs. 48,79,274/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no penalty should be levied

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

61. Now coming to the assessee’s penalty appeal in ITA No. 178/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2017–18. We have heard both the parties. We note that assessing officer imposed the penalty under section 270A of the Act for assessment 2017-18 at Rs. 48,79,274/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no penalty should be levied

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

61. Now coming to the assessee’s penalty appeal in ITA No. 178/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2017–18. We have heard both the parties. We note that assessing officer imposed the penalty under section 270A of the Act for assessment 2017-18 at Rs. 48,79,274/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no penalty should be levied

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

61. Now coming to the assessee’s penalty appeal in ITA No. 178/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2017–18. We have heard both the parties. We note that assessing officer imposed the penalty under section 270A of the Act for assessment 2017-18 at Rs. 48,79,274/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no penalty should be levied