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

25. The facts in ITA No. 55/Asr/2019 in respect of Asstt. Year 2011-12 to the facts in the bunch of the appeals are identical on parity of facts and therefore, our observation and finding given in the ITA No. 55/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year 2010-11 shall be applicable to the bunch of appeals

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

25. The facts in ITA No. 55/Asr/2019 in respect of Asstt. Year 2011-12 to the facts in the bunch of the appeals are identical on parity of facts and therefore, our observation and finding given in the ITA No. 55/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year 2010-11 shall be applicable to the bunch of appeals

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

25. The facts in ITA No. 55/Asr/2019 in respect of Asstt. Year 2011-12 to the facts in the bunch of the appeals are identical on parity of facts and therefore, our observation and finding given in the ITA No. 55/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year 2010-11 shall be applicable to the bunch of appeals

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

25. The facts in ITA No. 55/Asr/2019 in respect of Asstt. Year 2011-12 to the facts in the bunch of the appeals are identical on parity of facts and therefore, our observation and finding given in the ITA No. 55/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year 2010-11 shall be applicable to the bunch of appeals

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

25. The facts in ITA No. 55/Asr/2019 in respect of Asstt. Year 2011-12 to the facts in the bunch of the appeals are identical on parity of facts and therefore, our observation and finding given in the ITA No. 55/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year 2010-11 shall be applicable to the bunch of appeals

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

25. The facts in ITA No. 55/Asr/2019 in respect of Asstt. Year 2011-12 to the facts in the bunch of the appeals are identical on parity of facts and therefore, our observation and finding given in the ITA No. 55/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year 2010-11 shall be applicable to the bunch of appeals

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

25. The facts in ITA No. 55/Asr/2019 in respect of Asstt. Year 2011-12 to the facts in the bunch of the appeals are identical on parity of facts and therefore, our observation and finding given in the ITA No. 55/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year 2010-11 shall be applicable to the bunch of appeals

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

25. The facts in ITA No. 55/Asr/2019 in respect of Asstt. Year 2011-12 to the facts in the bunch of the appeals are identical on parity of facts and therefore, our observation and finding given in the ITA No. 55/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year 2010-11 shall be applicable to the bunch of appeals

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

25. The facts in ITA No. 55/Asr/2019 in respect of Asstt. Year 2011-12 to the facts in the bunch of the appeals are identical on parity of facts and therefore, our observation and finding given in the ITA No. 55/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year 2010-11 shall be applicable to the bunch of appeals

SHRI BALBIR SINGH M/S JAIDEEP GIFT CENTRE, TAPTEJ SINGH MARKET ,MOGA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MOGA RANGE , MOGA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

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

25% of share. The appellant at the time of penalty proceedings explained the reason of the deposit of cash was to show his financial position to the immigration authorities for the purpose of extension of study Visa of his son who had gone to Australia two years ago and study Visa. I have carefully considered the submission filed

SHRI BALBIR SINGH M/S JAIDEEP GIFT CENTRE TAPTEJ SINGH MARKET,MOGA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MOGA RANGE MOGA, MOGA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

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

25% of share. The appellant at the time of penalty proceedings explained the reason of the deposit of cash was to show his financial position to the immigration authorities for the purpose of extension of study Visa of his son who had gone to Australia two years ago and study Visa. I have carefully considered the submission filed

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

penalty levied u/s 271(l)(c) and 270A on the ground that the AO has rightly framed the assessment u/s 153C. The CIT(A) has mentioned that the section 153C was initiated by the AO based on documents pertaining to/ belonging to the appellant from a premises different to the premises of the appellant. The CIT(A) has also relied

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

penalty levied u/s 271(l)(c) and 270A on the ground that the AO has rightly framed the assessment u/s 153C. The CIT(A) has mentioned that the section 153C was initiated by the AO based on documents pertaining to/ belonging to the appellant from a premises different to the premises of the appellant. The CIT(A) has also relied

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR 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

penalty levied u/s 271(l)(c) and 270A on the ground that the AO has rightly framed the assessment u/s 153C. The CIT(A) has mentioned that the section 153C was initiated by the AO based on documents pertaining to/ belonging to the appellant from a premises different to the premises of the appellant. The CIT(A) has also relied

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR ,JALANDHAR 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

penalty levied u/s 271(l)(c) and 270A on the ground that the AO has rightly framed the assessment u/s 153C. The CIT(A) has mentioned that the section 153C was initiated by the AO based on documents pertaining to/ belonging to the appellant from a premises different to the premises of the appellant. The CIT(A) has also relied

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

penalty levied u/s 271(l)(c) and 270A on the ground that the AO has rightly framed the assessment u/s 153C. The CIT(A) has mentioned that the section 153C was initiated by the AO based on documents pertaining to/ belonging to the appellant from a premises different to the premises of the appellant. The CIT(A) has also relied

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

penalty levied u/s 271(l)(c) and 270A on the ground that the AO has rightly framed the assessment u/s 153C. The CIT(A) has mentioned that the section 153C was initiated by the AO based on documents pertaining to/ belonging to the appellant from a premises different to the premises of the appellant. The CIT(A) has also relied

JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

section 44AE (7) the Act 61, the entire business being part of audited accounts u/s 44AB of the Act 61. 24. As such we are of the opinion there is no concealment of truck income u/s 44AE of the Act 61 25. In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271

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