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

271(1)(c) of the Act, on the technical\nissue, being the penalty notice is defective, therefore, all other issues on merits\nof the penalty, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic\nand infructuous, hence do not require adjudication.\n36. Since the facts and circumstances in the case of ITA No.76/RJT/2022, for\nAY 2008-09, are identical to those

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, on the technical\nissue, being the penalty notice is defective, therefore, all other issues on merits\nof the penalty, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic\nand infructuous, hence do not require adjudication.\n36. Since the facts and circumstances in the case of ITA No.76/RJT/2022, for\nAY 2008-09, are identical to those

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, on the technical\nissue, being the penalty notice is defective, therefore, all other issues on merits\nof the penalty, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic\nand infructuous, hence do not require adjudication.\n36. Since the facts and circumstances in the case of ITA No.76/RJT/2022, for\nAY 2008-09, are identical to those

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, on the technical\nissue, being the penalty notice is defective, therefore, all other issues on merits\nof the penalty, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic\nand infructuous, hence do not require adjudication.\n\n36. Since the facts and circumstances in the case of ITA No.76/RJT/2022, for\nAY 2008-09, are identical

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, on the technical\nissue, being the penalty notice is defective, therefore, all other issues on merits\nof the penalty, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic\nand infructuous, hence do not require adjudication.\n36. Since the facts and circumstances in the case of ITA No.76/RJT/2022, for\nAY 2008-09, are identical to those

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

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

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.\nAssessed at Rs. 18,38,69,580/- under section

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

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

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

PARESH DAYASHANKAR MADEKA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), RAJKOT

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

u/s. 69C\n13 The appellant vide letter dated 07.12.2017 again requested the Assessing Officer to allow him to cross examine the Directors of M\s Bhumidev Credit Corporation Ltd. The Appellant was allowed to cross examine the Directors of M\s Bhumidev Credit Corporation Ltd. A copy of the statement recorded is enclosed. The Director confirmed that they have given

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is initiated for concealing the particulars of income." 3.12.2. Same finding has been given by the A.O. for the other assessment years in all the case of above mentioned appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant filed detailed submission against the additions made. The appellant contended that they are engaged

M/S AMBITIOUS FINANCE & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Mrs. Madhumita Royिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 1997-98 M/S. Ambitious Finance & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Investment Pvt. Ltd., Ward- 2(4), 107, Kapad Market, Para Bazar, Rajkot Rajkot Pan : Aabca 8076 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Written Submission Revenue By : Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

Section 144 of the I.T. Act on the best judgment and on the basis of material available with Department and inquiries conducted in this regard to establish interconnection between the deposits made by the depositors and introduction of the same into the books of accounts of the assessee. 6. The assessee is doing finance business. During

BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,242/- which was not declared in Return of Income and thereby partly allowed the appeal observing as follows: “….6.2 Admittedly, in the statement recorded u/s 132(4), one of the Directors of the appellant company had disclosed income of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. As against this, in the return of income only Rs.62,02,614/- were offered for taxation

THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,242/- which was not declared in Return of Income and thereby partly allowed the appeal observing as follows: “….6.2 Admittedly, in the statement recorded u/s 132(4), one of the Directors of the appellant company had disclosed income of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. As against this, in the return of income only Rs.62,02,614/- were offered for taxation

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