SHRI GULZAR SINGH , GURBACHAN SINGH,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 271(1) (c ) could not imposed and confirming of penalty U/s 271(1)(c ) on disallowance of shop expenses

THE HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL COPREATIVE -BANK,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE HOSHIARPUR, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, ground no. 1 of the assessee has not pressed, ground no-3 is

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

271(1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Addition made Rs.64,29,240/-)” I.T.A. No. 625/Asr/2019 5 6.1. We have observed that there was two effective issues in this appeal. The first issue concern itself with allowability of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Under the second limb wherein

SMT. JANAK RANI DHINGRA,HARYANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 294/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07

disallowing the deduction of Long Term Capital Gains from sale of residential house as declared by the Assessee. Thereafter, the AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 1,60,000/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded by the assessee on the ground of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

SHRI BHARAT PAL SOOD,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PHAGWARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Sood

section 271 of the I.T.Act, which was issued by the Assessing Officer alongwith the assessment order. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that a perusal of the aforesaid “SCN” dated 23.12.2011 did not reveal the default for which the assessee was called upon to explain as to why penalty may not be imposed upon him us 271 (1

SHRI YASH PAUL MALHOTRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, in the light of the above judgement, it is clear that that voluntary disclosure does not absolve the appellant from penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Furthermore, with regards to the penalty imposed on disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order has been assailed before

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order has been assailed before

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order has been assailed before

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order has been assailed before

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question