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

132(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. 8.2 The Ld. AR finally argued that the penalty notice issued, does not spell out under which limb of section 271(l)(c) whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty was proposed. For this proportion reliance is placed on CIT v/s Manjunatha Cotton

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

132(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. 8.2 The Ld. AR finally argued that the penalty notice issued, does not spell out under which limb of section 271(l)(c) whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty was proposed. For this proportion reliance is placed on CIT v/s Manjunatha Cotton

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

132(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. 8.2 The Ld. AR finally argued that the penalty notice issued, does not spell out under which limb of section 271(l)(c) whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty was proposed. For this proportion reliance is placed on CIT v/s Manjunatha Cotton

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

132(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. 8.2 The Ld. AR finally argued that the penalty notice issued, does not spell out under which limb of section 271(l)(c) whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty was proposed. For this proportion reliance is placed on CIT v/s Manjunatha Cotton

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

132(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. 8.2 The Ld. AR finally argued that the penalty notice issued, does not spell out under which limb of section 271(l)(c) whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty was proposed. For this proportion reliance is placed on CIT v/s Manjunatha Cotton

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

132(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. 8.2 The Ld. AR finally argued that the penalty notice issued, does not spell out under which limb of section 271(l)(c) whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty was proposed. For this proportion reliance is placed on CIT v/s Manjunatha Cotton

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

132(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. 8.2 The Ld. AR finally argued that the penalty notice issued, does not spell out under which limb of section 271(l)(c) whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty was proposed. For this proportion reliance is placed on CIT v/s Manjunatha Cotton

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

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

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR MITTAL,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result,all the three appeals bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

1) of the Act and the reason for doing so as stated in the penalty order is that the undisclosed income was not admitted by the assessee in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, secondly the manner of deriving such income was neither explained by her and nor by her husband and thirdly the manner of earning

SHRI SUSHIL MITTAL,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result,all the three appeals bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

1) of the Act and the reason for doing so as stated in the penalty order is that the undisclosed income was not admitted by the assessee in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, secondly the manner of deriving such income was neither explained by her and nor by her husband and thirdly the manner of earning

SHRI MATI SANJANA MITTAL ,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result,all the three appeals bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

1) of the Act and the reason for doing so as stated in the penalty order is that the undisclosed income was not admitted by the assessee in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, secondly the manner of deriving such income was neither explained by her and nor by her husband and thirdly the manner of earning

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset, the LD. Counsel submitted identical facts, the case in ITA No. 16/Asr/2023 may be taken as a lead case. There was search and seizure proceedings u/s 132 on 25.09.2019 conducted on the premises of M/s AIRWINGS SERVICES PVT. LTD in which the appellant is an employee. A search

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset, the LD. Counsel submitted identical facts, the case in ITA No. 16/Asr/2023 may be taken as a lead case. There was search and seizure proceedings u/s 132 on 25.09.2019 conducted on the premises of M/s AIRWINGS SERVICES PVT. LTD in which the appellant is an employee. A search

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset, the LD. Counsel submitted identical facts, the case in ITA No. 16/Asr/2023 may be taken as a lead case. There was search and seizure proceedings u/s 132 on 25.09.2019 conducted on the premises of M/s AIRWINGS SERVICES PVT. LTD in which the appellant is an employee. A search

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset, the LD. Counsel submitted identical facts, the case in ITA No. 16/Asr/2023 may be taken as a lead case. There was search and seizure proceedings u/s 132 on 25.09.2019 conducted on the premises of M/s AIRWINGS SERVICES PVT. LTD in which the appellant is an employee. A search

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset, the LD. Counsel submitted identical facts, the case in ITA No. 16/Asr/2023 may be taken as a lead case. There was search and seizure proceedings u/s 132 on 25.09.2019 conducted on the premises of M/s AIRWINGS SERVICES PVT. LTD in which the appellant is an employee. A search