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

2) TMI 418 - ITAT AHMEDABAD HAKIM KHAN SUMERGADH BIBALSAR, JALORE VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-3, PALANPUR Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non-compliance of the notices issued u/s. 142(1) - Penalty u/s 271F - non-filing of the Return of Income - HELD THAT:- Parliament has used the words "may" and not "shall", thereby making their intention clear

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

2) TMI 418 - ITAT AHMEDABAD HAKIM KHAN SUMERGADH BIBALSAR, JALORE VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-3, PALANPUR Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non-compliance of the notices issued u/s. 142(1) - Penalty u/s 271F - non-filing of the Return of Income - HELD THAT:- Parliament has used the words "may" and not "shall", thereby making their intention clear

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

section 145 of the Act. The assessee did not furnish any explanation during the assessment proceedings. Interest income was accordingly assessed, and penalty proceedings initiated. Under the circumstances, the AO’s satisfaction for the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is plain and apparent. (b) The second item is qua the disallowance in the sum of Rs.1

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

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

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

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

2. That proceedings initiated in this case are wrong, illegal and against facts. No specific allegation has been pointed out by the AO as to the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars has been levied by the AO in the notice dated 23/03/2015 issued under section 274 read with section 271(1 )(c) of the Income

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

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

2. That proceedings initiated in this case are wrong, illegal and against facts. No specific allegation has been pointed out by the AO as to the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars has been levied by the AO in the notice dated 23/03/2015 issued under section 274 read with section 271(1 )(c) of the Income

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

2. [***********] Explanation 3. [***********] Explanation 4. [***********] Explanation 5[**********] Explanation 5A- Where in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of,- (i) any money, bullion, jewelry or other valuable article or thing (hereinafter in this Explanation referred to as assets) and the assessee

SH AMIT 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

2. [***********] Explanation 3. [***********] Explanation 4. [***********] Explanation 5[**********] Explanation 5A- Where in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of,- (i) any money, bullion, jewelry or other valuable article or thing (hereinafter in this Explanation referred to as assets) and the assessee

SH AMIT 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

2. [***********] Explanation 3. [***********] Explanation 4. [***********] Explanation 5[**********] Explanation 5A- Where in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of,- (i) any money, bullion, jewelry or other valuable article or thing (hereinafter in this Explanation referred to as assets) and the assessee

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

2. [***********] Explanation 3. [***********] Explanation 4. [***********] Explanation 5[**********] Explanation 5A- Where in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of,- (i) any money, bullion, jewelry or other valuable article or thing (hereinafter in this Explanation referred to as assets) and the assessee

SH AMIT 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

2. [***********] Explanation 3. [***********] Explanation 4. [***********] Explanation 5[**********] Explanation 5A- Where in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of,- (i) any money, bullion, jewelry or other valuable article or thing (hereinafter in this Explanation referred to as assets) and the assessee

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

2. [***********] Explanation 3. [***********] Explanation 4. [***********] Explanation 5[**********] Explanation 5A- Where in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of,- (i) any money, bullion, jewelry or other valuable article or thing (hereinafter in this Explanation referred to as assets) and the assessee

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

2. [***********] Explanation 3. [***********] Explanation 4. [***********] Explanation 5[**********] Explanation 5A- Where in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of,- (i) any money, bullion, jewelry or other valuable article or thing (hereinafter in this Explanation referred to as assets) and the assessee