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

271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F are deleted. - Appeal of assessee allowed. b) 3 SOT 414 (KOL.)IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’Mrs. Manju Katarukav.Income-tax Officer Section 271F, read with section 273B, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to furnish return of income - Assessment year 2000-01 - Whether penalty under section 271F

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

271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F are deleted. - Appeal of assessee allowed. b) 3 SOT 414 (KOL.)IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’Mrs. Manju Katarukav.Income-tax Officer Section 271F, read with section 273B, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to furnish return of income - Assessment year 2000-01 - Whether penalty under section 271F

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

3 ITA No. 548 (Asr)/2016 (AY 2009-10) Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills v. Asst. CIT ‘Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. 271. (1)………. (1B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains

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

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

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

11. In the case of ‘CIT V/s Vijay Kumar Jain’, reported at 325 ITR 378 (HC) (Chattisgarh) held that particulars of receipts furnished by the assessee not having been found inaccurate and there being no allegation by the revenue that the assessee has concealed any income in his return, penalty under section 271 (1)(c) could not be imposed simply

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

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

11. In the case of ‘CIT V/s Vijay Kumar Jain’, reported at 325 ITR 378 (HC) (Chattisgarh) held that particulars of receipts furnished by the assessee not having been found inaccurate and there being no allegation by the revenue that the assessee has concealed any income in his return, penalty under section 271 (1)(c) could not be imposed simply

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is attracted with reference to income tax return filed and ultimately assessed. He further submitted that the act of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars will come into play after filing of income tax return and the satisfaction of the AO will be recorded on the basis of comparison between returned income

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. [***********] 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 claims that

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

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 claims that

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

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 claims that

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

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 claims that