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

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

deduction u/s 80IB, deleted the penalty to the said extent. 25. The assessee being aggrieved with the order passed by the CIT(A) to the extent he had sustained the penalty imposed by the A.O u/s 271

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

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

deduction u/s 80IB, deleted the penalty to the said extent. 25. The assessee being aggrieved with the order passed by the CIT(A) to the extent he had sustained the penalty imposed by the A.O u/s 271

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

deduction (from the gross total income u/s. 80G (Chapter VI-A of the Act / paras 6 to 6.2 of the assessment order). The same was accordingly disallowed, and 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) was imposed amounting to Rs.17.68 lakhs on the ground that, had the department not conducted survey u/s 133A this additional disclosure which has now been surrendered by the assessee on account of discrepancy in stock and cash could not have been made, since the surrender was after detection of discrepancies by the survey team

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

deduction in the seized document should be considered while arriving at net income. 19. In this case, the Assessing Officer has admitted that what was recorded in the seized document towards debit side is expenditure outside regular books of account, although nature of said expenditure is not known to the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer. Therefore

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

deduction in the seized document should be considered while arriving at net income. 19. In this case, the Assessing Officer has admitted that what was recorded in the seized document towards debit side is expenditure outside regular books of account, although nature of said expenditure is not known to the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer. Therefore

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

deduction in the seized document should be considered while arriving at net income. 19. In this case, the Assessing Officer has admitted that what was recorded in the seized document towards debit side is expenditure outside regular books of account, although nature of said expenditure is not known to the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer. Therefore

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

deduction in the seized document should be considered while arriving at net income. 19. In this case, the Assessing Officer has admitted that what was recorded in the seized document towards debit side is expenditure outside regular books of account, although nature of said expenditure is not known to the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer. Therefore

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

deduction in the seized document should be considered while arriving at net income. 19. In this case, the Assessing Officer has admitted that what was recorded in the seized document towards debit side is expenditure outside regular books of account, although nature of said expenditure is not known to the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer. Therefore

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

deduction in the seized document should be considered while arriving at net income. 19. In this case, the Assessing Officer has admitted that what was recorded in the seized document towards debit side is expenditure outside regular books of account, although nature of said expenditure is not known to the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer. Therefore

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

deduction in the seized document should be considered while arriving at net income. 19. In this case, the Assessing Officer has admitted that what was recorded in the seized document towards debit side is expenditure outside regular books of account, although nature of said expenditure is not known to the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer. Therefore

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

deduction in the seized document should be considered while arriving at net income. 19. In this case, the Assessing Officer has admitted that what was recorded in the seized document towards debit side is expenditure outside regular books of account, although nature of said expenditure is not known to the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer. Therefore

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

deduction in the seized document should be considered while arriving at net income. 19. In this case, the Assessing Officer has admitted that what was recorded in the seized document towards debit side is expenditure outside regular books of account, although nature of said expenditure is not known to the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer. Therefore

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

deduction in the seized document should be considered while arriving at net income. 19. In this case, the Assessing Officer has admitted that what was recorded in the seized document towards debit side is expenditure outside regular books of account, although nature of said expenditure is not known to the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer. Therefore

SHRI CHANDAN BHARDWAJ,TARN TARAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

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

u/s 271(1)(C) is wrong illegal and against facts and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 2. That Ld. AO while imposing the penalty has not considered the facts of the case and proceeded to impose the penalty arbitrarily. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts while confirming the same

SH. JINDER PAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), AMRITSAR

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

u/s 271(1)(C) is wrong illegal and against facts and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 2. That Ld. AO while imposing the penalty has not considered the facts of the case and proceeded to impose the penalty arbitrarily. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts while confirming the same

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMIOSSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

deduction claimed u/s 80C. The ld. CIT(A) had observed that the AO records satisfaction for imposition of penalty was for concealment of income, however, he omitted to strike off the irrelevant part of the blank printed format notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

deduction claimed u/s 80C. The ld. CIT(A) had observed that the AO records satisfaction for imposition of penalty was for concealment of income, however, he omitted to strike off the irrelevant part of the blank printed format notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271