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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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

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

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