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) of the Act to the first default of the assessee in not complying with the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty imposed is restricted to ₹ 10,000/- . The grounds of appeal of the assessee are thus partly allowed. From the above submission your honor is very humbly submitted to delete the penalty

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) of the Act to the first default of the assessee in not complying with the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty imposed is restricted to ₹ 10,000/- . The grounds of appeal of the assessee are thus partly allowed. From the above submission your honor is very humbly submitted to delete the penalty

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

2 is therefore not maintainable. Further, without prejudice to the above, the plea as to non-strike off of one of the two limbs on which a penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) becomes leviable, is even otherwise not maintainable in the facts of the case. This is, as apparent, and as also evident from the assessment and the penalty 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

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 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

2. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, Learned CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has grossly erred in confirming penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act since no satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271( 1 )(C) of the Act which makes the penalty imposed illegal

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

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

2. That proceedings initiated in this case are wrong, illegal and against facts. No specific allegation has been pointed out by the AO as to the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars has been levied by the AO in the notice dated 23/03/2015 issued under section 274 read with section 271(1 )(c) of the Income

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

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

2. That proceedings initiated in this case are wrong, illegal and against facts. No specific allegation has been pointed out by the AO as to the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars has been levied by the AO in the notice dated 23/03/2015 issued under section 274 read with section 271(1 )(c) of the Income

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

17, on the basis of net of debit and credit entries from so called diary found during the course of search. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict addition to the extent of Rs.73.13 lakhs for the assessment year 2016-17. Similarly, the assessee has worked out peak credit of Rs.422.00 lakhs for the assessment year

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

17, on the basis of net of debit and credit entries from so called diary found during the course of search. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict addition to the extent of Rs.73.13 lakhs for the assessment year 2016-17. Similarly, the assessee has worked out peak credit of Rs.422.00 lakhs for the assessment year

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

17, on the basis of net of debit and credit entries from so called diary found during the course of search. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict addition to the extent of Rs.73.13 lakhs for the assessment year 2016-17. Similarly, the assessee has worked out peak credit of Rs.422.00 lakhs for the assessment year

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL 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

17, on the basis of net of debit and credit entries from so called diary found during the course of search. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict addition to the extent of Rs.73.13 lakhs for the assessment year 2016-17. Similarly, the assessee has worked out peak credit of Rs.422.00 lakhs for the assessment year

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

17, on the basis of net of debit and credit entries from so called diary found during the course of search. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict addition to the extent of Rs.73.13 lakhs for the assessment year 2016-17. Similarly, the assessee has worked out peak credit of Rs.422.00 lakhs for the assessment year

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

17, on the basis of net of debit and credit entries from so called diary found during the course of search. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict addition to the extent of Rs.73.13 lakhs for the assessment year 2016-17. Similarly, the assessee has worked out peak credit of Rs.422.00 lakhs for the assessment year

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

17, on the basis of net of debit and credit entries from so called diary found during the course of search. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict addition to the extent of Rs.73.13 lakhs for the assessment year 2016-17. Similarly, the assessee has worked out peak credit of Rs.422.00 lakhs for the assessment year

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

17, on the basis of net of debit and credit entries from so called diary found during the course of search. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict addition to the extent of Rs.73.13 lakhs for the assessment year 2016-17. Similarly, the assessee has worked out peak credit of Rs.422.00 lakhs for the assessment year