SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

addition made by the AO in assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 as the same has been passed without providing the copy of reasons recorded and sanction letter u/s 151. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the assessee has been regularly filing income tax returns and has duly disclosed commission income. 7. That

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

addition made by the AO in assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 as the same has been passed without providing the copy of reasons recorded and sanction letter u/s 151. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the assessee has been regularly filing income tax returns and has duly disclosed commission income. 7. That

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

addition u/s 115BBE. Since there was no tax effect involved, the assessee did not prefer appeal for this academic exercise. But for that error on the part of Ld. AO penalty should not have been imposed. 7.2.6 When income is surrendered in survey and subsequently declared in ITR u/s 148, penalty u/s 271

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

addition u/s 115BBE. Since there was no tax effect involved, the assessee did not prefer appeal for this academic exercise. But for that error on the part of Ld. AO penalty should not have been imposed. 7.2.6 When income is surrendered in survey and subsequently declared in ITR u/s 148, penalty u/s 271

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

addition u/s 115BBE. Since there was no tax effect involved, the assessee did not prefer appeal for this academic exercise. But for that error on the part of Ld. AO penalty should not have been imposed. 7.2.6 When income is surrendered in survey and subsequently declared in ITR u/s 148, penalty u/s 271

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

addition u/s 115BBE. Since there was no tax effect involved, the assessee did not prefer appeal for this academic exercise. But for that error on the part of Ld. AO penalty should not have been imposed. 7.2.6 When income is surrendered in survey and subsequently declared in ITR u/s 148, penalty u/s 271

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

addition u/s 115BBE. Since there was no tax effect involved, the assessee did not prefer appeal for this academic exercise. But for that error on the part of Ld. AO penalty should not have been imposed. 7.2.6 When income is surrendered in survey and subsequently declared in ITR u/s 148, penalty u/s 271

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

addition u/s 115BBE. Since there was no tax effect involved, the assessee did not prefer appeal for this academic exercise. But for that error on the part of Ld. AO penalty should not have been imposed. 7.2.6 When income is surrendered in survey and subsequently declared in ITR u/s 148, penalty u/s 271

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

addition u/s 115BBE. Since there was no tax effect involved, the assessee did not prefer appeal for this academic exercise. But for that error on the part of Ld. AO penalty should not have been imposed. 7.2.6 When income is surrendered in survey and subsequently declared in ITR u/s 148, penalty u/s 271

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

addition u/s 115BBE. Since there was no tax effect involved, the assessee did not prefer appeal for this academic exercise. But for that error on the part of Ld. AO penalty should not have been imposed. 7.2.6 When income is surrendered in survey and subsequently declared in ITR u/s 148, penalty u/s 271

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

addition u/s 115BBE. Since there was no tax effect involved, the assessee did not prefer appeal for this academic exercise. But for that error on the part of Ld. AO penalty should not have been imposed. 7.2.6 When income is surrendered in survey and subsequently declared in ITR u/s 148, penalty u/s 271

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

addition u/s 115BBE. Since there was no tax effect involved, the assessee did not prefer appeal for this academic exercise. But for that error on the part of Ld. AO penalty should not have been imposed. 7.2.6 When income is surrendered in survey and subsequently declared in ITR u/s 148, penalty u/s 271

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act imposed at Rs. 17,68,888/- on alleged concealment of income of Rs. 56,26,000/- whereas assessment has been framed at income of Rs. 96,04,900/- as against returned income of Rs. 95,06,340/-by making addition

M/S KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 25.06.2012 for assessment year (AY) 2009-10. 2. The appeal raises the issue of sustainability of the impugned order to the extent it confirms the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), which stands assailed on the following grounds: ‘1. That the order under appeal

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

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing of the particulars of income by the assessee, as regards the following additions/disallowances : Sr. No. Particulars Amount of Addition/disallowance 1. Disallowance of Bogus purchases claimed by the assessee to have been made from two parties viz. (i) Rs. 2,38,60,205/- Rs. 2,86,96,452/- M/s Balaji

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

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing of the particulars of income by the assessee, as regards the following additions/disallowances : Sr. No. Particulars Amount of Addition/disallowance 1. Disallowance of Bogus purchases claimed by the assessee to have been made from two parties viz. (i) Rs. 2,38,60,205/- Rs. 2,86,96,452/- M/s Balaji

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

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing of the particulars of income by the assessee, as regards the following additions/disallowances : Sr. No. Particulars Amount of Addition/disallowance 1. Disallowance of Bogus purchases claimed by the assessee to have been made from two parties viz. (i) Rs. 2,38,60,205/- Rs. 2,86,96,452/- M/s Balaji

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

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing of the particulars of income by the assessee, as regards the following additions/disallowances : Sr. No. Particulars Amount of Addition/disallowance 1. Disallowance of Bogus purchases claimed by the assessee to have been made from two parties viz. (i) Rs. 2,38,60,205/- Rs. 2,86,96,452/- M/s Balaji