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

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) (c

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 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

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

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

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

THE HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL COOP BANK LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE, HOSHIARPUR

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id.CIT(A) misdirected herself to confirm the levy of penalty under section 271(l)(c) on wholly erroneous and insufficient grounds. 2. That contrary to facts on record, the Id.CIT(A) grossly erred to hold that the assessee did not declare true particulars of income and no bonafide explanation

M/S. SURYA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,ABOHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayaftfrcf ^T./Ita No. 348/Asr/2023 / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Surya Automobiles Pvt The Dcit, <Shh Circle Ii, Ltd., Near Dav Campus, Bhatinda Hanumangarh Road, Abohar ^|41<^H./Pan No: Aafcs271 In Ul^^Ff/Respondent Appellant

Section 271 (1) (c) can be imposed only because no appeal has been filed against addition / disallowance. The reliance is placed

SH. RUCHI SHARMA,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 135/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 vide order dated 26.03.2015. 2. The assessee, a manufacturer of resin and turpentine oil from resin procured from the forest department, was during assessment proceedings found to have advanced loan/s to its’ sister concern, M/s. P.R. Chemicals, on interest free

THE BARAMULLA CENTRAL COPERATIVE BANK LTD,KASHMIR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meena

disallowance u/s 36(i)(iv) and 36(i)(va) of the Act. These additions were confirmed by the CIT as well as ITAT penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated. After getting the order of the ITAT, the case was fixed for hearing on 22.05.2014 but the assessee failed to make any compliance therefore the AO imposed penalty

INDIAN TOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTRE,JALANDHAR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1) , JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

271(1)(c) of the Act, ignoring the facts of case and without observing the principles of natural justice.” 5. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee company was incorporated on 28th June, 2010 under the Companies Act 1956, with the main object to establish a common facility center (CPC ) for use of hand tool manufacturers, with

SHIVA MINT INDUSTRIES,,JAMMU vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.649 & 650(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2007-08 & 2009-10

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by rejecting the submissions of the assessee in summary manner and thus the penalty order is illegal, invalid, bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A) has completely failed to understand that the assessee has neither concealed the particulars

M/S SHIVA MINT INDUSTRIES,,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.649 & 650(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2007-08 & 2009-10

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by rejecting the submissions of the assessee in summary manner and thus the penalty order is illegal, invalid, bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A) has completely failed to understand that the assessee has neither concealed the particulars

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,, 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