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

11. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the penalty cannot be imposed for each and every notice which remains un-complied. In the present case, the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) has been imposed for same default. Furthermore, the Ld. AO has failed to appreciate that there was a nationwide severe pandemic of COVID and everyone in the country was duly

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

11. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the penalty cannot be imposed for each and every notice which remains un-complied. In the present case, the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) has been imposed for same default. Furthermore, the Ld. AO has failed to appreciate that there was a nationwide severe pandemic of COVID and everyone in the country was duly

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

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

5. The Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on disallowance made on a/c of shop expenses at Gulzar Singh Gurbachan Singh v. ITO Rs.64949/- and Rs.119114/- against estimated disallowance made out of the appellant claim of shop expenses at Rs.129898/- and Rs.238228/- in respect of the Assessment Year

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

5. The Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on disallowance made on a/c of shop expenses at Gulzar Singh Gurbachan Singh v. ITO Rs.64949/- and Rs.119114/- against estimated disallowance made out of the appellant claim of shop expenses at Rs.129898/- and Rs.238228/- in respect of the Assessment Year

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

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 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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has raised the additional ground of appeal under Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules as under: “viii. That on the facts and under the circumstance of the case the penalty levied under Section 271

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

5 ITA No. 460./Asr/2017 – A.Y 2001-02 7. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention. Admittedly, on a perusal

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

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 such assets have been

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

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 such assets have been

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

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 such assets have been

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

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 such assets have been

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

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 such assets have been

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

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 such assets have been

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

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 such assets have been

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

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 such assets have been