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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act also issued on 21/12/2018. 4. In response to the penalty notice, the assessee had filed written reply on 18/06/2019, before the assessing officer. The assessee submitted that it is very clear on reading the provisions of section 50C of the Act, which provides that the value as assessed or accessible by Stamp JETHANAND

ATMAN RAJNIKANT BHESDADIYA L/R. LATE SHRI RAJNIKANT LAVJIBHAI BHEDADIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

u/s. 68 of the Act. 8.1. For adjudicating the levy of penalty is correct in law or otherwise, Section 271AAB is reproduced as follows: Penalty where search has been initiated. 271AAB. (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not limb to stand, which is hereby cancelled, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.715/RJT/2010 – A.Y.2007-08 22. In ground no.1 and 2, assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO under section 153A of ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not limb to stand, which is hereby cancelled, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.715/RJT/2010 – A.Y.2007-08 22. In ground no.1 and 2, assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO under section 153A of ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not limb to stand, which is hereby cancelled, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.715/RJT/2010 – A.Y.2007-08 22. In ground no.1 and 2, assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO under section 153A of ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not limb to stand, which is hereby cancelled, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.715/RJT/2010 – A.Y.2007-08 22. In ground no.1 and 2, assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO under section 153A of ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not limb to stand, which is hereby cancelled, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.715/RJT/2010 – A.Y.2007-08 22. In ground no.1 and 2, assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO under section 153A of ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not limb to stand, which is hereby cancelled, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.715/RJT/2010 – A.Y.2007-08 22. In ground no.1 and 2, assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO under section 153A of ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not limb to stand, which is hereby cancelled, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.715/RJT/2010 – A.Y.2007-08 22. In ground no.1 and 2, assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO under section 153A of ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not limb to stand, which is hereby cancelled, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.715/RJT/2010 – A.Y.2007-08 22. In ground no.1 and 2, assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO under section 153A of ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others

M/S AJAY SALT & CHEMICALS,,UNA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

68. 6.4 The appellant has also raised issue of absence of specific satisfaction noted (before initiating penalty proceeding) in the assessment order. This contention is factually incorrect. In order dtd. 24/12/2013 passed u/s. 143(1) rws 254 of the IT Act, 1961, in para 8 the AO has clearly mentioned that therefore penalty proceedings Asstt. Year 2006-07 3 u/s.271

SHRI KRISHANMOHAN RAMWADH SHINGH,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, JAMNAGAR

In the result appeal, of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated for the concealment of income. Finally the AO vide order dated 17.07.2015 confirmed the penalty at Rs. 1,38,326/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who also confirmed the order

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

M/S. SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Vitrified Tiles. The Return Of Income Has Been E-Filed By The Assessee, On 10/09/2016 For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17, Reporting Loss Of Rs. 5,68,00,829/-, Which Was Later Revised On 09/03/2018, Declaring Total Loss Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/-, Claiming Investment Allowance U/S 32Ac Of The Income Tax Act. The Case Has Been Selected For Complete Scrutiny (Cass) Specifically To Examine The Followings: 1) Whether Outward Foreign Remittance Is From Disclosed Sources & Appropriate Withholding & Reporting Obligation Have Been Complied With; 2) Whether Investment & Income Relating To Properties Are Duly Disclosed; 3) Whether Receipt Of Foreign Remittance Has Been Correctly Offered For Tax And, 4) Whether Sundry Creditors Are Genuine. 4. The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 Was Passed By Dcit, Morbi Circle, Morbi, Being The Assessing Officer (Ao), On 21/12/2018, Allowing The Loss Claimed Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/- To Be Carry Forward To Subsequent Years. 2

68 and added back to the assessee's total income. Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) is initiated on these amounts for concealment of income. Assessed at Rs. 18,38,69,580/- under section

SMT. ZARNABEN VIBHASHBHAI SHETH,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at 100% tax to be evaded for Rs.1,52,809/-. The appellant accordingly do not succeed in the appeal and therefore ground of appeal on this account is accordingly dismissed.” 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The assessee through written

KAMLESHKUMAR VALLABHBHAI CHANCHADIYA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD-2(1)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

68 of Rs. 11,00,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, notice u/s. 142(1) dated 16/05/2018 & 17/09/2018 were served upon the assessee. In response, the assessee failed to reply during the assessment proceedings. Therefore the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) for non- compliance of the above notices and opportunity was given to the assessee

JAGANI VINODRAI GOPALDAS (HUF),RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (4),, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 59/Rjt/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Jagani Vinodrai Gopaldas Huf, Income-Tax Officer, 62 – Suraj Appartment, Vs. Ward-1(2)(4), No.1 Shroff Road, Rajkot. Opp. Church, Nfac, Delhi Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaahj9710N

68 and contended that the assessee has made full disclosure about exempted long term capital gain in the computation of income. The Ld. AR for this purpose drew our attention on page 22 of the paper book where the details of long-term capital gain being exempted income was disclosed in the statement of income. Accordingly, the ld. AR submitted

SUBHAS HANSARAJ NANDU,BHACHAU, KUTCH vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hybrid Hearing) Assessment Year: (2010-11) Subhas Hansaraj Nandu Vs. National Faceless Assessment Opp:Shambhu Maharaj Bungalow Centre, Delhi. Bhachau, Gujarat. Pan : Afrpn 0720 J (Assessee) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.Dr

68 of the Act and added to the income of the assessee, also the payment of interest of Rs.54,950/- made to the alleged 4 parties was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessing officer has initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1) (c) as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. During

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

u/s 68 of the IT Act is correct. It is proposition of law that the scope of the provision of section 68 of the IT Act cannot be extended to noting in rough notebook which is not books of account as defined in section 2(12A) of the IT Act. There was no case for making the addition u/s68