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

274 r.w.s 271(1)(b) whereby the appellant was asked as to why the penalty in default of notice u/s 142(1) should not be levied and consequently, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of an amount of Rs. 30000/- was levied vide order passed by the AO on 19.09.2022 against three defaults in 18 I.T.A. Nos. 31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh

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

274 r.w.s 271(1)(b) whereby the appellant was asked as to why the penalty in default of notice u/s 142(1) should not be levied and consequently, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of an amount of Rs. 30000/- was levied vide order passed by the AO on 19.09.2022 against three defaults in 18 I.T.A. Nos. 31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh

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

section 145 of the Act. The assessee did not furnish any explanation during the assessment proceedings. Interest income was accordingly assessed, and penalty proceedings initiated. Under the circumstances, the AO’s satisfaction for the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is plain and apparent. (b) The second item is qua the disallowance in the sum of Rs.1

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 274 read with section 271(I) (C) of the Act is must and imperative for levy of penalty. 10.8 The penalty provisions of section 271(1

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 274 read with section 271(I) (C) of the Act is must and imperative for levy of penalty. 10.8 The penalty provisions of section 271(1

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 274 read with section 271(I) (C) of the Act is must and imperative for levy of penalty. 10.8 The penalty provisions of section 271(1

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 274 read with section 271(I) (C) of the Act is must and imperative for levy of penalty. 10.8 The penalty provisions of section 271(1

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 274 read with section 271(I) (C) of the Act is must and imperative for levy of penalty. 10.8 The penalty provisions of section 271(1

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 274 read with section 271(I) (C) of the Act is must and imperative for levy of penalty. 10.8 The penalty provisions of section 271(1

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 274 read with section 271(I) (C) of the Act is must and imperative for levy of penalty. 10.8 The penalty provisions of section 271(1

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 274 read with section 271(I) (C) of the Act is must and imperative for levy of penalty. 10.8 The penalty provisions of section 271(1

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

274 r.w.s 271 of the Act, dated 19.02.2004. It was submitted by the Ld. AR, that a perusal of the aforesaid “SCN”, dated 19.02.2004 did not reveal the default for which the assessee firm was called upon to explain as to why penalty may not be imposed on it us 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was the claim

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

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

274 read with section 271(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Copy of notice u/s 271(1)(c) is attached herewith (Marked Annexure - A) 2.1 It may kindly be appreciated that the AO has initiated the penalty

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

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

274 read with section 271(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Copy of notice u/s 271(1)(c) is attached herewith (Marked Annexure - A) 2.1 It may kindly be appreciated that the AO has initiated the penalty

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SARWAN SINGH PHILLAUR, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 562/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings

SH. SARWAN SINGH PHILLAUR,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 562/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 25.01.2016 passed by the Assessing officer with the approval of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range III, dated 08.03.2016 is illegal. 2. That no proper satisfaction was recorded by the learned Assessing Officer in the Assessment order or in the notice U/s 271(1)(c) read with Section 274

SHRI SUSHIL MITTAL,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result,all the three appeals bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law; The assessee should know the grounds which