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

10. It is seen that penalty imposable u/s. 271(1)(b) is included in the provisions of section 273B. By the said provisions, the Parliament has unambiguously made it clear that no penalty "shall be" imposed, if the assessee "proves that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure". As noticed, if the statutory provision shows that the word

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

10. It is seen that penalty imposable u/s. 271(1)(b) is included in the provisions of section 273B. By the said provisions, the Parliament has unambiguously made it clear that no penalty "shall be" imposed, if the assessee "proves that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure". As noticed, if the statutory provision shows that the word

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

10) ‘12. In the case of Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC), a three-judge Bench of this court held that Dilip N. Shroff did not lay down the correct law as the difference between section 271(1)(c) and section 276C of the Act was lost sight of. The court held that

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

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

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

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

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

271(1)(c) could be levied as the proceedings initiated were not valid and in accordance with the Act. 3. That on merits also no penalty is called for. AO made an addition of Rs. 42,54,123/- on the basis of Form 26AS and applied the rate of 10%. CIT(A) reduced the addition

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

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

271(1)(c) could be levied as the proceedings initiated were not valid and in accordance with the Act. 3. That on merits also no penalty is called for. AO made an addition of Rs. 42,54,123/- on the basis of Form 26AS and applied the rate of 10%. CIT(A) reduced the addition

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

3) of the Act on a total income of Rs.96,04,900/- with a minor addition of Rs.98,557/- on account of estimated one fourth disallowance for car expenses and depreciation. However, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) initiated in the assessment order itself for concealment of income. 3.3 Subsequently, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed amounting to Rs.17.68 lakhs

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR MITTAL,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result,all the three appeals bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

3) No penalty should have levied u/s 271AAB(d) of the Act as the statement of the assessee was not recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act (4) Nowhere in the assessment order it is stated that the assessee has surrendered and disclosed I.T.A Nos. 433 to 435/ASR/2019 4 income and that the assessed income of Rs.43,17,590/- constitutes

SHRI SUSHIL MITTAL,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result,all the three appeals bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

3) No penalty should have levied u/s 271AAB(d) of the Act as the statement of the assessee was not recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act (4) Nowhere in the assessment order it is stated that the assessee has surrendered and disclosed I.T.A Nos. 433 to 435/ASR/2019 4 income and that the assessed income of Rs.43,17,590/- constitutes

SHRI MATI SANJANA MITTAL ,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result,all the three appeals bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

3) No penalty should have levied u/s 271AAB(d) of the Act as the statement of the assessee was not recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act (4) Nowhere in the assessment order it is stated that the assessee has surrendered and disclosed I.T.A Nos. 433 to 435/ASR/2019 4 income and that the assessed income of Rs.43,17,590/- constitutes

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

3 ITA No. 460./Asr/2017 – A.Y 2001-02 particulars of income by the assessee firm qua the additions/disallowance that were made while framing the assessment in its case. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) in appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee

SHRI AJAYA KUMAR CHADDA ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for short ’the Act’) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(i)(c) of the Act, the penalty

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

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty without appreciating the facts that the Ld. AO has not discussed the reasons for levying penalty & merit of additional income on which penalty has been levied. 4. That the appellant craves to added or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed