THE DCIT, (INTL. TAXN.), RAJKOT vs. M/S. KOREA SOUTH EAST POWER CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit (Intl. Taxn.) M/S.Korea South East Power Amruta Estate Co.Ltd. Room No.312 Mg Road बनाम/ C/O. P.V. Page & Co., Girnar Cinema 201, Sardar Griha, 198 L.T. Marg Vs. Rajkot Mumbai – 400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Pan : Ahvps 3555Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

reassessment and imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal after considering the facts, deleted the penalty and observed that since there is no change in the income declared and income assessed by the Assessing Officer, it cannot be said that there were any concealment of income. Relevant extract is reproduced as under: "We find that the income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SIX TWENTY REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

56,000 | 4,06,000\n| C3 | 502 | 3 BHK | 30,42,000 | 33,00,000 | 2,58,000\n|

HETALKUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU,RAJKOT vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

56,017/- as unexplained within the meaning of section 69 of the IT Act and\nnot charged tax u/s section 115BBE of the I.T. Act\nFurther, it is seen that during the year under consideration, the assessee firm has\ntotal turnover of Rs.77,42,35,548/- and had earned a gross profit

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

56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereas secondary documentary evidence is the evidence that includes copies of documents that can be presented in the court under certain circumstances or as mentioned in Section 63 and Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. Direct Evidence is acknowledged as the most important evidence required for deciding the matter in issue. Direct

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereas secondary documentary evidence is the evidence that includes copies of documents that can be presented in the court under certain circumstances or as mentioned in Section 63 and Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. Direct Evidence is acknowledged as the most important evidence required for deciding the matter in issue. Direct