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

u/s 153A/143(3) in accepting return of income, find 16 I.T.A. Nos. 31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh Singh v. ITO, NFAC that it was sufficient compliance, merely because the assessee could not make compliance due to some bonafide reason, no penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act could be levied on the assessee. In view of aforesaid factual

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

u/s 153A/143(3) in accepting return of income, find 16 I.T.A. Nos. 31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh Singh v. ITO, NFAC that it was sufficient compliance, merely because the assessee could not make compliance due to some bonafide reason, no penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act could be levied on the assessee. In view of aforesaid factual

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 271(1B) - which relates only to penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), does not, as explained, operate to remove the need for the prima facie satisfaction on the part of the authority initiating the penalty proceedings. In fine, the law, per its clear language, as well as, as explained per a series of decisions by the Apex Court, settling

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

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

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been initiated.” In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we concur with the ld. A.R, that the A.O had both in the body of the assessment order, as well as vide his “SCN”, dated 19.02.2004 failed to put the assessee firm to notice as regards the specific default

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

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

section 271(1) (c) of the Act for year under consideration and it is liable to be quashed on the ground that the AO has failed to apply his mind by even not bothering to strike one of the allegations and thus fails to record satisfaction in the penalty proceedings. Thus, the penalties levies in both the cases

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) of the Act for year under consideration and it is liable to be quashed on the ground that the AO has failed to apply his mind by even not bothering to strike one of the allegations and thus fails to record satisfaction in the penalty proceedings. Thus, the penalties levies in both the cases

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

SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH PROP KARNAIL SINGH SUKHDEV SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

13. 04. 2012 u/s 139 of the Act declaring income u/s 44 AD of the Act. Total income of Rs. 1, 82,972/- was declared at the rate of 8% on total turnover of Rs, 14,86,302/-. In addition labour income was shown at Rs. 2, 33,720/-. Proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act were initiated on the basis

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

13,700 14,00,000 2011-12 7 ,57,24,715 7 ,44,03,715 34,65,000 2012-13 5,84,55,112 5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them

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

13,700 14,00,000 2011-12 7 ,57,24,715 7 ,44,03,715 34,65,000 2012-13 5,84,55,112 5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them

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

13,700 14,00,000 2011-12 7 ,57,24,715 7 ,44,03,715 34,65,000 2012-13 5,84,55,112 5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them

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

13,700 14,00,000 2011-12 7 ,57,24,715 7 ,44,03,715 34,65,000 2012-13 5,84,55,112 5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them

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

13,700 14,00,000 2011-12 7 ,57,24,715 7 ,44,03,715 34,65,000 2012-13 5,84,55,112 5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them

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

13,700 14,00,000 2011-12 7 ,57,24,715 7 ,44,03,715 34,65,000 2012-13 5,84,55,112 5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them