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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hence, the assessing officer,\nlevied penalty the under section 271(1) (C), of the Act, to the tune of\nRs.35,55,728/-\n\n14. Issue No.2- Deemed rent of more than one properties reflected in the\nBalance Sheet, Rs.1,80

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hence, the assessing officer,\nlevied penalty the under section 271(1) (C), of the Act, to the tune of\nRs.35,55,728/-\n14. Issue No.2- Deemed rent of more than one properties reflected in the\nBalance Sheet, Rs.1,80

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hence, the assessing officer,\nlevied penalty the under section 271(1) (C), of the Act, to the tune of\nRs.35,55,728/-\n14. Issue No.2- Deemed rent of more than one properties reflected in the\nBalance Sheet, Rs.1,80

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hence, the assessing officer,\nlevied penalty the under section 271(1) (C), of the Act, to the tune of\nRs.35,55,728/-.\n14. Issue No.2- Deemed rent of more than one properties reflected in the\nBalance Sheet, Rs.1,80

M/S MKC INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANJAR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. In view of the facts that the proceedings have not crystallized no interference on this point is called for. 8.0 In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee

M/S. UNITED ENGINEERS, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C vide order dated 27.12.2016 accepting the returned income with initiation of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. The AO levied the penalty of Rs.l,33,002/- i.e. equal to 100% of the tax sought to have been evaded vide order dated 23.5.2017 and the appellant is in appeal against

M/S. GUPTA GLOBAL EXIM PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act of Rs.40,90,779/-.” 15. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in imposing the penalty of Rs. 40,90,779.00 under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. The assessee in the year under consideration has declared the loss

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Act. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 8 and delete the penalty. Both the appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 are allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No.712/RJT/2010 for the Asstt.Year 2001-02. As far as this assessment year is concerned

SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2, RAJKOT

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

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

section 92E of the Act and hence, question of penalty does not arise. 3.1. It is also submitted by the assessee that there was no intention to skip the details of audit report u/s 92E of the Act, in the return of income filed for the Assessment Year 2015-16, but was totally unintentional and bonafide mistake which may kindly

SHRI AJAYBHAI ISHWARLAL GOGIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) (5), RAJKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. In appeal against the against the order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee submitted that penalty cannot be levied in case two opinions are possible in respect of a certain transaction. In the instant case, there are divergent views whether capital gains can be levied in these

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

section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. But the assessee again failed to submit or furnished any reply before the AO. Therefore the AO in absence of any reply or submission held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particular of income and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,61,568/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded