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

Section 273B encompasses that certain penalties "shall" not be imposed in cases where "reasonable cause". 10. It is seen that penalty imposable u/s. 271(1

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

Section 273B encompasses that certain penalties "shall" not be imposed in cases where "reasonable cause". 10. It is seen that penalty imposable u/s. 271(1

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

u/s. 271(1)(c). This is precisely what stands clarified by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Madhushree Gupta & Ors v. Union of India [2009] 317 ITR 107 (Del), a copious decision rendered under writ jurisdiction on a challenge to the vires of the provision (section 271(1B)). Upholding its’ constitutionality, it again emphasized on the primacy

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

section 271(1) (c) is to penalize the assessee for concealment of particulars of income and/or furnishing inadequate particulars of such income. To our understanding, penalty cannot be imposed just for making incorrect claim in view of four principles laid down by Apex Court’s Judgment in “CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd”, [2010] 322 ITR 158 that- 1. Penalty

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

section 271(1) (c) is to penalize the assessee for concealment of particulars of income and/or furnishing inadequate particulars of such income. To our understanding, penalty cannot be imposed just for making incorrect claim in view of four principles laid down by Apex Court’s Judgment in “CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd”, [2010] 322 ITR 158 that- 1. Penalty

M/S. CHAUDHARY ENTERPRISES,,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR

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

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been initiated.” In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we concur with the ld. A.R, that the A.O had both in the body of the assessment order, as well as vide his “SCN”, dated 19.02.2004 failed to put the assessee firm to notice as regards the specific default

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

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

section 271(1) (c) of the Act for year under consideration and is liable to be quashed on the ground that the AO has failed to apply his mind before 10 ITAs No.591/ASR/2017 and 455/ASR/2018 initiating the penalty proceedings and, therefore, the proceedings initiated are bad in law. As such, the Id. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining

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

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

section 271(1) (c) of the Act for year under consideration and is liable to be quashed on the ground that the AO has failed to apply his mind before 10 ITAs No.591/ASR/2017 and 455/ASR/2018 initiating the penalty proceedings and, therefore, the proceedings initiated are bad in law. As such, the Id. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining

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

Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, in the light of the above judgement, it is clear that that voluntary disclosure does not absolve the appellant from penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Furthermore, with regards to the penalty imposed on disallowance of personal expenses on account of car expenses and depreciation

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3), AMRITSAR

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

Bench: Shri L.P Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as no correct charge has been made against the assessee.” As the assessee by raising the additional grounds of appeal has sought adjudication of a legal issue based on the facts borne from the records, therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SARWAN SINGH PHILLAUR, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 562/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 reads as under:- “Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for Assessment Year 2007-08 it appears to me that – …… Have concealed the particulars of your income or……………… furnished inaccurate particulars of such income” 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders

SH. SARWAN SINGH PHILLAUR,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 562/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 reads as under:- “Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for Assessment Year 2007-08 it appears to me that – …… Have concealed the particulars of your income or……………… furnished inaccurate particulars of such income” 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders

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

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

Penalty order u/s 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

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

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

Penalty order u/s 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

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

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

Penalty order u/s 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

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

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

Penalty order u/s 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

SH. KASTURI LAL MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

10. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,85,400/- ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts of the ITA No.46/Asr/2017 are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was conducted on dated 30.06.2009 at the residential premises of the assessee. Survey operations u/s 133A of the Act were also conducted simultaneously

SH SUMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

10. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,85,400/- ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts of the ITA No.46/Asr/2017 are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was conducted on dated 30.06.2009 at the residential premises of the assessee. Survey operations u/s 133A of the Act were also conducted simultaneously