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

section 142(1) of the Act. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalties u/s 271(1)(b) of the act amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in each appeal, on account of non-compliance to notice u/s 142(1) on 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 are set aside. 21. In the above view, we accept

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

section 142(1) of the Act. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalties u/s 271(1)(b) of the act amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in each appeal, on account of non-compliance to notice u/s 142(1) on 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 are set aside. 21. In the above view, we accept

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

5 to 8 of the order passed by Hon'ble A.M.) There was, therefore, no ambiguity in law for the Parliament to have stepped in by introducing section 271(1B), deeming a satisfaction where the order of assessment or reassessment contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). This is precisely what stands clarified

SHRI AJAYA KUMAR CHADDA ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, which was • accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would

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

21,000/- 19.07.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 49,000/- 27.08.2010 Chq withdrawal. Self, Asr 1,00,000/- 03.09.2010 Chq withdrawal, Self, Asr 1,00,000/- 09.09.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 2,00,000/- 10.09.2010 Lash deposited, Raipur 3,00,000/- 13.09.2010 Chq withdrawal, Self, Asr 7,00,000/- 16.09.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 3,00,000/- 24.09.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 5

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

5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them, the aforesaid calculation of peak has to be further divided in both the appellant assesse being 50% share of each in the business

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

5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them, the aforesaid calculation of peak has to be further divided in both the appellant assesse being 50% share of each in the business

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

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

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

5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them, the aforesaid calculation of peak has to be further divided in both the appellant assesse being 50% share of each in the business

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

5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them, the aforesaid calculation of peak has to be further divided in both the appellant assesse being 50% share of each in the business

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

5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them, the aforesaid calculation of peak has to be further divided in both the appellant assesse being 50% share of each in the business

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI 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

5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them, the aforesaid calculation of peak has to be further divided in both the appellant assesse being 50% share of each in the business

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

5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them, the aforesaid calculation of peak has to be further divided in both the appellant assesse being 50% share of each in the business

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

5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them, the aforesaid calculation of peak has to be further divided in both the appellant assesse being 50% share of each in the business

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

5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them, the aforesaid calculation of peak has to be further divided in both the appellant assesse being 50% share of each in the business

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

5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them, the aforesaid calculation of peak has to be further divided in both the appellant assesse being 50% share of each in the business

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