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

73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka) has held as\nfollows:\n\"3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice\nissued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which\nlimb

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

73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka) has held as\nfollows:\n\n“3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice\nissued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which\nlimb

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

73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka) has held as\nfollows:\n“3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice\nissued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which\nlimb

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

73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka) has held as\nfollows:\n\"3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice\nissued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which\nlimb

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

73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka) has held as\nfollows:\n“3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice\nissued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which\nlimb

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

73 Taxmann.com 248) (SC) “Section 274, read with section 271(1)(c). of the Income-tax Act 1961 Penalty Procedure for imposition of (Conditions precedent) - Assessment year 2009 10-Tribunal relying on decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Cou rendered in case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 IT 565/218 Taxman 423/35 taxmann.com 250, allowed appeal

JITENDRAKUMAR BHAILAL DODIYA,SAVARKUNDLA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), AMRELI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 3.3 Whereas the notice issued dated 26/12/2011 through which the penalty proceedings are initiated describes as under. That you have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 3.4 From the above its clear that the notice issued

M/S. ANUKUL CONSTRUCTION CO.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

u/s section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable 1.3 At page 2 para 4.2 the Ld. AO has mentioned .that penalty proceedings are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and for concealment of income. Thus without specific initiation penalty has been levied is bad in law and such vague charges itself are illegal. A copy of penalty notice issued

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. THE JAMNAGAR DISTRICT CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

73,786/-. The AO also invoked the provision of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on such partial denial of deduction and imposed penalty quantified at Rs.31,59,030/- vide order dated 21.09.2015. 4. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee made detailed submission before the CIT(A) with which

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6.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 imposed by the assessing officer. The Ld. CIT(A) noticed that assessee had given no reasons as to why this additional evidence could be produced at the assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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