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

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

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

u/s 271(1)(C) is wrong illegal and against facts and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 2. That Ld. AO while imposing the penalty has not considered the facts of the case and proceeded to impose the penalty arbitrarily. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts while confirming the same

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

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

u/s 271(1)(C) is wrong illegal and against facts and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 2. That Ld. AO while imposing the penalty has not considered the facts of the case and proceeded to impose the penalty arbitrarily. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts while confirming the same

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

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 of information that

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

139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which was assessed at Rs. 22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271

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

139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which was assessed at Rs. 22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271

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

139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which was assessed at Rs. 22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271

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

139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which was assessed at Rs. 22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271

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

139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which was assessed at Rs. 22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271

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

139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which was assessed at Rs. 22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271

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

139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which was assessed at Rs. 22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271

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

139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which was assessed at Rs. 22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271

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

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

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings