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

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

Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction Rs. 64,10,983/- u/s 80IB of the Act. On the basis of a ‘Show cause’ notice (‘SCN’), dated 22.10.2013, the assessee was called upon to explain as to why penalty u/s 271

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

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

Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction Rs. 64,10,983/- u/s 80IB of the Act. On the basis of a ‘Show cause’ notice (‘SCN’), dated 22.10.2013, the assessee was called upon to explain as to why penalty 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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is plain and apparent. (b) The second item is qua the disallowance in the sum of Rs.1

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

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) (c ) could not imposed and confirming of penalty U/s

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

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) (c ) could not imposed and confirming of penalty U/s

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

disallowance for car expenses and depreciation. However, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) initiated in the assessment order itself for concealment

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

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) would be pre-mature and, hence, not maintainable. In support of his aforesaid contention, the Ld. AR relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of R.B. Shree Ram Durga Prasad vs CIT, Nagpur (2016) 65 taxman.com 293 (Bom.) 7. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short

MRS. MALTI GUPTA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER,WARD-III(4), JALANDHAR

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

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

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) for concealment at Rs. P a g e | 2 ITA No.757/Asr./2017 Mrs. Malti Gupta, Jalandhar 1,10,521/- without appreciating the explanation giving including relevant case laws. 2. We find that the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer involves a delay of 24 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay

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

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

Disallowance of premium paid for Rs.45,92,000/- 2. leave encashment Total 1,48,92,000/- 3. After receipt of the order passed by the ld CIT(A) in the quantum appeal, the AO vide his order passed u/s 271(1)(c) dated 23/03/2016 imposed a penalty

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

penalty u/s 271 (l)(c) of the Act even if the disallowance has been confirmed in the quantum proceedings and no appeal

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

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

SH. SURESH KUMAR SHARMA S/O. SH. RAKHA RAM,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), FARIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

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

disallowance was made under Chapter VIA amount of Rs. 1 lacs. In ITA No 111/Asr/2019 is related to penalty u/s 271

SH.SURESH KUMAR SHARMA.S/O SH. RAKHA RAM,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (3), FAIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

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

disallowance was made under Chapter VIA amount of Rs. 1 lacs. In ITA No 111/Asr/2019 is related to penalty u/s 271

SHRIMATI HARWINDER KAUR,KAPURTHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

disallowance of the interest was made u/s 143(3). The interest was debited in the P & L account under revenue expenditure. The issue was already I.T.A. No.96/Asr/2021 4 Assessment Year: 2008-09 settled by the Apex Court in the order mentioned above. After respectful consideration of the order of Apex court the framing of penalty U/s 271

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

disallowed the same, also initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). The assessment stood confirmed in quantum proceedings up to the Appellate

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

disallowed the same, also initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). The assessment stood confirmed in quantum proceedings up to the Appellate

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)

271(1)(c). Similar assessments were framed for subsequent years as well wherein the assessee, in reopening returns of income, offered additional income from other sources, withdrew claim of house property loss and also withdrew claim of deduction under Chapter VIA. The Ld. AO accepted the returns but levied penalties in similar background. The Ld. CIT(A), rejected reasonable cause