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

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) - assessee failed to comply notice u/s 142(1) - scope of bonafide reason - HELD THAT:- Division Bench of Delhi Tribunal in Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shmshak Sangh Bhawan Trust [2007 (8) TMI 386 - ITAT DELHI-G] held that where assessee had not complied with notice under Section 142(1) but assessment order was passed under Section

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

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) - assessee failed to comply notice u/s 142(1) - scope of bonafide reason - HELD THAT:- Division Bench of Delhi Tribunal in Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shmshak Sangh Bhawan Trust [2007 (8) TMI 386 - ITAT DELHI-G] held that where assessee had not complied with notice under Section 142(1) but assessment order was passed under Section

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

u/s. 271(1)(c). This is precisely what stands clarified by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Madhushree Gupta & Ors v. Union of India [2009] 317 ITR 107 (Del), a copious decision rendered under writ jurisdiction on a challenge to the vires of the provision (section 271(1B)). Upholding its’ constitutionality, it again emphasized on the primacy

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

143(3) of the Act, dated 19.02.2004 and the income of the assessee firm was determined at Rs. 18,26,350/-. The A.O while culminating the assessment initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Also, a ‘Show Cause’ notice (“SCN”) u/s. 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act, dated 19.02.2004 was issued to the assessee. 3. After culmination

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3), AMRITSAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri L.P Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 25.01.2016 passed by the Assessing officer with the approval of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range III, dated 08.03.2016 is illegal. 2. That no proper satisfaction was recorded by the learned Assessing Officer in the Assessment order or in the notice U/s 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Income

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

143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs.96,04,900/- with a minor addition of Rs.98,557/- on account of estimated one fourth disallowance for car expenses and depreciation. However, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) initiated in the assessment order itself for concealment of income. 3.3 Subsequently, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed amounting to Rs.17.68

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

143(3), (Assessee) dated 30.12.2011. ITA 579/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c),dated (Assessee) 11/03/2014. ITA 547/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 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

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

143(3), (Assessee) dated 30.12.2011. ITA 579/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c),dated (Assessee) 11/03/2014. ITA 547/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 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

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

143(3), (Assessee) dated 30.12.2011. ITA 579/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c),dated (Assessee) 11/03/2014. ITA 547/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

143(3), (Assessee) dated 30.12.2011. ITA 579/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c),dated (Assessee) 11/03/2014. ITA 547/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 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

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

143(3)/153A of the Act. It was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee has shown the income at Rs.5,20,870/- in the original return of income filed u/s 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

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

143(3)/153A of the Act. It was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee has shown the income at Rs.5,20,870/- in the original return of income filed u/s 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

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

143(3)/153A of the Act. It was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee has shown the income at Rs.5,20,870/- in the original return of income filed u/s 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

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

143(3)/153A of the Act. It was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee has shown the income at Rs.5,20,870/- in the original return of income filed u/s 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

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

143(3)/153A of the Act. It was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee has shown the income at Rs.5,20,870/- in the original return of income filed u/s 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

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

143(3)/153A of the Act. It was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee has shown the income at Rs.5,20,870/- in the original return of income filed u/s 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

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

143(3)/153A of the Act. It was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee has shown the income at Rs.5,20,870/- in the original return of income filed u/s 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

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

143(3)/153A of the Act. It was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee has shown the income at Rs.5,20,870/- in the original return of income filed u/s 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