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

31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh Singh v. ITO, NFAC 9. A perusal of the above provisions of u/s. 271(1)(b) shows that the Parliament has used the words "may" and not "shall", thereby making their intention clear in as much as that levy of Penalty is discretionary and not automatic. The said conclusion is further justified by Section

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

31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh Singh v. ITO, NFAC 9. A perusal of the above provisions of u/s. 271(1)(b) shows that the Parliament has used the words "may" and not "shall", thereby making their intention clear in as much as that levy of Penalty is discretionary and not automatic. The said conclusion is further justified by Section

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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

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

JAMMU & KASHMIR STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.249/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13

31,90,534/-. The tax was calculated total amount of Rs.1,04,55,018/- on undeclared income. The ld. AO levied penalty of 100%. So, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied Rs.1,04,55,018/-. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has taken both legal and factual ground before

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

31,531 71,542 A/c (As per last line of Para 3.7(v) page no 5. of A.order u/s 143(3) 9. It is seen that the additions pertain to bank deposits and deduction claimed u/s 80C. The ld. CIT(A) had observed that the AO records satisfaction for imposition of penalty was for concealment of income, however, he omitted