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

section 139(1). the assessee cannot be visited with penalty. We allow all these appeals of the assessee and delete the penalties. 4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear and an established fact that the income offered pursuant to notice u/s 153C would replace the income offered in return filed u/s 139(1). Furthermore, the notice u/s

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

section 139(1). the assessee cannot be visited with penalty. We allow all these appeals of the assessee and delete the penalties. 4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear and an established fact that the income offered pursuant to notice u/s 153C would replace the income offered in return filed u/s 139(1). Furthermore, the notice u/s

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

section 139(1). the assessee cannot be visited with penalty. We allow all these appeals of the assessee and delete the penalties. 4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear and an established fact that the income offered pursuant to notice u/s 153C would replace the income offered in return filed u/s 139(1). Furthermore, the notice u/s

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

section 139(1). the assessee cannot be visited with penalty. We allow all these appeals of the assessee and delete the penalties. 4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear and an established fact that the income offered pursuant to notice u/s 153C would replace the income offered in return filed u/s 139(1). Furthermore, the notice u/s

SMT. PRITPAL KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3), JALANDHAR

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

u/s 271F of IT Act amounting to Rs.5,000. The assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) but CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty on two grounds. 1. That the AR of appellant appear before the AO in the penalty proceedings but has not mentioned about the sale of the property at which the appellant was residing