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

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

reopened his case u/s 147 of the Act. In compliance to the notice issued u/s 148 on 22.12.2011 the assessee vide his letter dated 12.03.2012 requested that his return of income filed u/s 139(1) on 29.11.2008 may be treated as the return of income filed in compliance to the said notice. Acting upon the aforesaid request, the A.O framed

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

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

reopened his case u/s 147 of the Act. In compliance to the notice issued u/s 148 on 22.12.2011 the assessee vide his letter dated 12.03.2012 requested that his return of income filed u/s 139(1) on 29.11.2008 may be treated as the return of income filed in compliance to the said notice. Acting upon the aforesaid request, the A.O framed

SH. VISHWA MITTER SEKHRI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,BATALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), AMRITSAR.

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 75/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

u/s 10(23C) and under section 11 of the Act. So, the addition made needs to be deleted. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the initiation of the penalty proceedings by the AO under Section 271 (1)c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

reopened his case u/s 147 of the Act. Observing, that the Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 06.06.2012 could not be served upon the assessee because as per the report of the notice server of the department the assessee had left India and his present whereabouts were not available, the A.O served the same by way of affixture

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

reopened his case u/s 147 of the Act. Observing, that the Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 06.06.2012 could not be served upon the assessee because as per the report of the notice server of the department the assessee had left India and his present whereabouts were not available, the A.O served the same by way of affixture

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

penalty u/s 271(1) (b) which was initiated for non-complying notice U/s 142(1) during the assessment proceeding. The amount of Rs.10,000/- is levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed the appeals against both the orders before the ld. CIT(A). But remain unsuccessful. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 6. Both

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

penalty u/s 271(1) (b) which was initiated for non-complying notice U/s 142(1) during the assessment proceeding. The amount of Rs.10,000/- is levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed the appeals against both the orders before the ld. CIT(A). But remain unsuccessful. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 6. Both

SMT. RAJINDER KAUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) of the Act have been initiated since assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act has been made by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) vide order dated 28.03.2022. Assessee was further informed that appeal against assessment order is required to be filed and assessee is also entitled to question the order passed

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

assesses and its deemed income u/s 68 of the I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 15 And C.O. Nos. 01 & 02/Asr/2025 Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income are simultaneously initiated.” 8. The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate authority and the Ld. CIT (A), has considered all materials on record

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

assesses and its deemed income u/s 68 of the I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 15 And C.O. Nos. 01 & 02/Asr/2025 Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income are simultaneously initiated.” 8. The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate authority and the Ld. CIT (A), has considered all materials on record

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)

penalty for Rs.11,000/- u/s 271(1)(c). Similar assessments were framed for subsequent years as well wherein the assessee, in reopening

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)

penalty for Rs.11,000/- u/s 271(1)(c). Similar assessments were framed for subsequent years as well wherein the assessee, in reopening

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)

penalty for Rs.11,000/- u/s 271(1)(c). Similar assessments were framed for subsequent years as well wherein the assessee, in reopening

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)

penalty for Rs.11,000/- u/s 271(1)(c). Similar assessments were framed for subsequent years as well wherein the assessee, in reopening

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)

penalty for Rs.11,000/- u/s 271(1)(c). Similar assessments were framed for subsequent years as well wherein the assessee, in reopening

SH. SARABJEET SINGH GUMTALA,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(4), AMRITSAR

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.09.2014 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts on the record and this illegality pervades all grounds of appeal and no penalty was imposable. That the Worthy CIT(Appeals) without appreciating completed facts, submissions and legal position has further erred in confirming the decision

THE BANGA COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER,NAWANSHAHAR, NAWANSHAHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Sood

reopened u/s 148 of the Act and the assessee declared additional income of Rs.1,58,960/-. However, the AO framed the assessment at an income of Rs.1,90,240/- and also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271

THE BANGA COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Sood

reopened u/s 148 of the Act and the assessee declared additional income of Rs.1,58,960/-. However, the AO framed the assessment at an income of Rs.1,90,240/- and also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271