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

125/-. Thus, the impugned order of the CIT(A) stands modified in the terms indicated as above, in both the quantum appeals. ITA Nos. 32 & 34/Asr/2023 12. On identical facts, in these two appeals, the appellant has challenged the CIT(A)’s orders in confirming the levy of penalties u/s 271(1)(b) of the act amounting

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

125/-. Thus, the impugned order of the CIT(A) stands modified in the terms indicated as above, in both the quantum appeals. ITA Nos. 32 & 34/Asr/2023 12. On identical facts, in these two appeals, the appellant has challenged the CIT(A)’s orders in confirming the levy of penalties u/s 271(1)(b) of the act amounting

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

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

section 271 (1)(c) could not be imposed simply on account of addition made by the AO on application of higher rate of net profit. 12. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ‘CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd.’, reported in 322 ITR 316 (Del), has held that no penalty u/s 271(l)(c) can be imposed when income

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) could not be imposed simply on account of addition made by the AO on application of higher rate of net profit. 12. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ‘CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd.’, reported in 322 ITR 316 (Del), has held that no penalty u/s 271(l)(c) can be imposed when income

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

125 TAXMAN 775 (Delhi) iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

125 TAXMAN 775 (Delhi) iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

125 TAXMAN 775 (Delhi) iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

125 TAXMAN 775 (Delhi) iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

125 TAXMAN 775 (Delhi) iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

125 TAXMAN 775 (Delhi) iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

125 TAXMAN 775 (Delhi) iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

125 TAXMAN 775 (Delhi) iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

125 TAXMAN 775 (Delhi) iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

125 TAXMAN 775 (Delhi) iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established

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