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

d) That the Ld CIT (Appeals), failed to appreciate that the assessment was framed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act and disallowance was made on technical grounds and the appellant is not guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, the penalty under section 271(1

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

D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-2, Jalandhar, dated 04.04.2018 which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'I.T. Act'), dated 23.11.2015 for Assessment Year

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

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

D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-1, Jalandhar dated 27.03.2017, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), dated 23.03.2016 for Assessment Year

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) was not challenged /no appeal was filed. The Id. CIT(A) in his order has clearly given his findings on this as under:- ".....However, the appellant has not filed any appeal on account of addition of Rs. 18,82,009/- u/s 36(l)(iii) of the Act. Since, the addition of Rs. 3,44,431/- made

SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH BEDI,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, GURDASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

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

d) of the act, rather discussed the quantum addition, holding the appeal stands dismissed in casual manner by observing as under: The appellant, an individual, non filer of the return of income for the A.Y. 2017- 18 on 07/02/2018 Declaring total income of Rs.9,43,320/-. The AO passed the order

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

D. R. Respondent by Date of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 12.03.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the penalty order of the AO, Ward 1(1), Jalandhar passed

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

D E R 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2011- 12 to 2015-16 have identical facts and issues viz. confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.5,466/- for AY 2011-12, Rs.1,66,000/- for AY 2012-13, Rs.1,64,500/- for AY 2013-14, Rs.2,28,500/- for AY 2014- 15 & Rs.4

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

D E R 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2011- 12 to 2015-16 have identical facts and issues viz. confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.5,466/- for AY 2011-12, Rs.1,66,000/- for AY 2012-13, Rs.1,64,500/- for AY 2013-14, Rs.2,28,500/- for AY 2014- 15 & Rs.4

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

D E R 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2011- 12 to 2015-16 have identical facts and issues viz. confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.5,466/- for AY 2011-12, Rs.1,66,000/- for AY 2012-13, Rs.1,64,500/- for AY 2013-14, Rs.2,28,500/- for AY 2014- 15 & Rs.4

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

D E R 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2011- 12 to 2015-16 have identical facts and issues viz. confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.5,466/- for AY 2011-12, Rs.1,66,000/- for AY 2012-13, Rs.1,64,500/- for AY 2013-14, Rs.2,28,500/- for AY 2014- 15 & Rs.4

HIMANI GOYA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

D E R 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2011- 12 to 2015-16 have identical facts and issues viz. confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.5,466/- for AY 2011-12, Rs.1,66,000/- for AY 2012-13, Rs.1,64,500/- for AY 2013-14, Rs.2,28,500/- for AY 2014- 15 & Rs.4

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA vs. SH. DALJIT SINGH, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.461(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2007-08

section 271(1)(c), but such presumption is rebuttable. The Explanation itself provides for such rebuttal in cases, where the taxpayer has an explanation for the difference, produces all the materials available with him and such explanation is not found to be mala fide. In the instant case, the appellant did provide explanation for the lesser profit disclosed, which

SH. AMRINDER SINGH DHIMAN,NAKODAR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE PHAGWARA, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Section 40a(ia) states that any amount on which tax is deductible at source and such tax has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid then such sum shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head 'profits of business or profession'. d. In the present case, TDS was to be deducted

THE MAHIL GAILAN COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,MAHIL GAILAN, SBS NAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed claim of the assessee amounting Rs. 29,875/- being employees share of provident fund u/s 36(1)(VA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which otherwise was deductible under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being a direct charge/ expenditure in the course of carrying on the business of the assessee. 3. The appellant craves permission