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 for noncompliance of notices. 4. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,95,406/- in each appeal on account of excess NP @ 5% on estimating turn over comprising of cash deposited

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 for noncompliance of notices. 4. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,95,406/- in each appeal on account of excess NP @ 5% on estimating turn over comprising of cash deposited

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)) could be initiated, is, apart from being apparent from a bare reading of the provision, reading as under, well settled (refer: D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 557 (SC); CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar [1962] 44 ITR 739 (SC)): ‘Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. 271. (1

SHRI GULZAR SINGH , GURBACHAN SINGH,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

d) That the Ld CIT (Appeals), failed to appreciate that the assessment was framed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act and disallowance was made on technical grounds and the appellant is not guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, the penalty under section 271(1) (c ) could not imposed and confirming of penalty

SHRI GULZAR SINGH. GURBACHAN SINGH,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

d) That the Ld CIT (Appeals), failed to appreciate that the assessment was framed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act and disallowance was made on technical grounds and the appellant is not guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, the penalty under section 271(1) (c ) could not imposed and confirming of penalty

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

D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)-1, Jalandhar dated 13.03.2017, which in turn arises from the order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act”), dated M/s Chaudhary Enterprises

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

D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Amritsar, dated 06.09.2017, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'I.T. Act'),dated 25.01.2016 for Assessment Year

NAVJEEVAN CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(l)(b) but are equally applicable to penalties levied u/s 272A(l)(d) as in both the sections, the penalty is leviable in cases of non-compliance to directions to get books audited u/s 142(2A). Hence, the contentions of the AR, in the present case, that as the Special Audit has been completed, hence the penalty order

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

u/s 271AAB of the Act as well . 10.5 The coordinate bench of ITAT at Delhi in Tripat Kaur, New Delhi v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA No.1829 to 1833/Del/2015 decided on dated 08th May, 2018 and M/s Ose Infrastructure Ltd. v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT ITA No.5891 to 5895/Del/2016, decided

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

u/s 271AAB of the Act as well . 10.5 The coordinate bench of ITAT at Delhi in Tripat Kaur, New Delhi v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA No.1829 to 1833/Del/2015 decided on dated 08th May, 2018 and M/s Ose Infrastructure Ltd. v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT ITA No.5891 to 5895/Del/2016, decided

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

u/s 271AAB of the Act as well . 10.5 The coordinate bench of ITAT at Delhi in Tripat Kaur, New Delhi v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA No.1829 to 1833/Del/2015 decided on dated 08th May, 2018 and M/s Ose Infrastructure Ltd. v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT ITA No.5891 to 5895/Del/2016, decided

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

u/s 271AAB of the Act as well . 10.5 The coordinate bench of ITAT at Delhi in Tripat Kaur, New Delhi v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA No.1829 to 1833/Del/2015 decided on dated 08th May, 2018 and M/s Ose Infrastructure Ltd. v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT ITA No.5891 to 5895/Del/2016, decided

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

u/s 271AAB of the Act as well . 10.5 The coordinate bench of ITAT at Delhi in Tripat Kaur, New Delhi v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA No.1829 to 1833/Del/2015 decided on dated 08th May, 2018 and M/s Ose Infrastructure Ltd. v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT ITA No.5891 to 5895/Del/2016, decided

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

u/s 271AAB of the Act as well . 10.5 The coordinate bench of ITAT at Delhi in Tripat Kaur, New Delhi v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA No.1829 to 1833/Del/2015 decided on dated 08th May, 2018 and M/s Ose Infrastructure Ltd. v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT ITA No.5891 to 5895/Del/2016, decided

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

u/s 271AAB of the Act as well . 10.5 The coordinate bench of ITAT at Delhi in Tripat Kaur, New Delhi v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA No.1829 to 1833/Del/2015 decided on dated 08th May, 2018 and M/s Ose Infrastructure Ltd. v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT ITA No.5891 to 5895/Del/2016, decided

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

u/s 271AAB of the Act as well . 10.5 The coordinate bench of ITAT at Delhi in Tripat Kaur, New Delhi v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA No.1829 to 1833/Del/2015 decided on dated 08th May, 2018 and M/s Ose Infrastructure Ltd. v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT ITA No.5891 to 5895/Del/2016, decided

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