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

TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n11\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions may be good but not for penalty. The\nassessee has relied on the various judgements. However, ld CIT(A) rejected the\nabove contention

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

TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n\n11\n\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions may be good but not for penalty. The\nassessee has relied on the various judgements. However, ld CIT(A) rejected the\nabove contention

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

TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n11\nH\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions may be good but not for penalty. The\nassessee

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961\n[hereinafter referred as to the \"Act\"] at Rs.35,55,728/-on the alleged ground that the\nassessee has not disclosed the income earned of Rs.1,04,61,096/- from the\nundisclosed foreign account either in the return of income filed u/s.139(1) or 153A of\nthe Act. The penalty

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

TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n11\nH\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions may be good but not for penalty. The\nassessee

UTSAV COTFAB P. LTD.,JETPUR vs. THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (3), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Mrs. Madhumita Roy(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Utsav Cotfab Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R Survey No. 603P/3/P/1, Ward- 1(2)(3), Khirsara Road, Nr. Jodia Hanuman Rajkot Mandir, Jetpur, Rajkot – 360370 Pan : Aabcu 3825 F अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.07.2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the act Id. AO entirely ignored the factual aspects and the existence of reasonable reasons in this case. 1.3 The reasonable reasons for non-compliance to statutory notices issued u/s. 142(1)of the act are submitted hereunder: 4 Utsav Cotfab Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO AY : 2014-15 1.3.1 The appellant-company has started

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)

271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5 is reproduced as under: "15. Insofar as the alleged failure on the part of the assessee to specify in the statement under section 132(4) of the Act regarding the manner in which such income has been derived, suffice it to state that when the statement is being recorded by the authorized officer

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)

271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5 is reproduced as under: "15. Insofar as the alleged failure on the part of the assessee to specify in the statement under section 132(4) of the Act regarding the manner in which such income has been derived, suffice it to state that when the statement is being recorded by the authorized officer

M/S J.K. TRANSPORT & CONSTR. CO.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Briefly, the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment, the AO observed that as per TDS

SHRI ANILKUMAR AMARNATH AGARWAL,,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2013-14 Anilkumaramarnathagarwal Vs. Ito, Ward-1 27/2, Panchvatisociety Jamnagar. Nr.Gaushala Jamnagar 361 008. Gujarat. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022

271(1)(c) as under: "In this matter I have to submit that due to in advertence income credited by one debtor Shri Suresh Agarwal interest income worth Rs. 5,37,812.00 was not considered in audited accounts. It was also seen that claim of TDS was also not made in audited accounts. However, at the time of hearing

VRAJ AND VAJ CONSTRUCTION,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012-13. I.T.A No. 179/Rjt/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 M/s. Vraj and Vaj Construction vs. ACIT 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Civil Contractor and undertake other Civil Construction Works

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.54-56/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2010-11 D.C.I.T, M/S.Backbone Construction Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Ekta House, 2-Jalaram, Rajkot University Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aaccb1167C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a private limited company and engaged in the business of construction of Road, dams, water supply, water purification and other infrastructure work on behalf of the government. A search was carried out at the premises of the assessee company

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.54-56/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2010-11 D.C.I.T, M/S.Backbone Construction Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Ekta House, 2-Jalaram, Rajkot University Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aaccb1167C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a private limited company and engaged in the business of construction of Road, dams, water supply, water purification and other infrastructure work on behalf of the government. A search was carried out at the premises of the assessee company

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.54-56/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2010-11 D.C.I.T, M/S.Backbone Construction Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Ekta House, 2-Jalaram, Rajkot University Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aaccb1167C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a private limited company and engaged in the business of construction of Road, dams, water supply, water purification and other infrastructure work on behalf of the government. A search was carried out at the premises of the assessee company

SHAILESH AMRUTLAL KOTECHA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS difference of Rs. 6,76,832/- (iii) Addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of Rs. 234350/- I.T.A Nos. 146 & 153/Rjt/2014 A.Y. 2005-06 Page No 5 Shailesh Amrutlal Kotecha vs. ITO The assessing officer has stated that there was no compliance from the assessee as nothing to say in the matter. Accordingly, the penalty

SHAILESH AMRUTLAL KOTECHA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS difference of Rs. 6,76,832/- (iii) Addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of Rs. 234350/- I.T.A Nos. 146 & 153/Rjt/2014 A.Y. 2005-06 Page No 5 Shailesh Amrutlal Kotecha vs. ITO The assessing officer has stated that there was no compliance from the assessee as nothing to say in the matter. Accordingly, the penalty

M/S. EAGLE CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (2), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Eagle Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, “Ëagle House” Circle-1(2), Rajkot. Near Moti Tanki Chowk, Rajkot – 360 001. [Pan – Aaace 8903 H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble:

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on addition on account of interest income of Rs.3,32,587/- is unwarranted, unjustified and bad ion law.” 3. The assessment was completed on 26.03.2015 thereby making the addition in respect of donation, TDS

SMT. CHANDRAKALA M. JUNEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.995/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Ito, Smt Juneja Chandrakala Ward-1, Mohinder, Vs. Gandhidham, 31, Tanker Owner Association Building, N.H. Way, Gandhidham-Kutch. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.930/Rjt/2010 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.453/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Smt. Chandrakala M. Juneja, Ito, 31, Taker, Owners Asso. Ward-1, Vs. Bldg. Gandhidham. Gandhidham. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

penalty order dated 02/10/2013 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act relevant to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2005-06. First we take up Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No. 995/RJT/2010 for A.Y. 2005-06. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. The Ld.CIT(A)-II, Rajkot has erred in law and on facts of the case

THE ITO, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM vs. SHRI JUNEJA CHANDRAKALA MOHINDER,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.995/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Ito, Smt Juneja Chandrakala Ward-1, Mohinder, Vs. Gandhidham, 31, Tanker Owner Association Building, N.H. Way, Gandhidham-Kutch. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.930/Rjt/2010 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.453/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Smt. Chandrakala M. Juneja, Ito, 31, Taker, Owners Asso. Ward-1, Vs. Bldg. Gandhidham. Gandhidham. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

penalty order dated 02/10/2013 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act relevant to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2005-06. First we take up Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No. 995/RJT/2010 for A.Y. 2005-06. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. The Ld.CIT(A)-II, Rajkot has erred in law and on facts of the case