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(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

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(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

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(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

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(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

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(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

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(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

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(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

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(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

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(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

SHRI H.K. GANDOTRA,GURGAON vs. THE INOCME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

section and, as apparent from the reading of, inter alia, Explanation 1 thereto, form part of the same charge. 3.6 Next may be discussed the assessee’s reliance on the decision in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). The said reliance, as indeed the legal argument raised, is de hors the facts of the case, and in view

THE HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL COOP BANK LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE, HOSHIARPUR

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), dated 23.03.2016 for Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds before us: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id.CIT(A) misdirected herself to confirm the levy of penalty under section 271

THE HALDHAR FOODS(P) LTD.,FEROZPUR CANTT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-III(5), FEROZPUR

In the result, the appeal i

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

271(B) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is wrong, illegal and baseless because this the assessee has reasonable cause for not getting the books audited under section 44AB of the I.T. Act, 1961 in time due the reasons beyond his control. Since the assessee had reasonable cause for not getting the books of accounts audited hence penalty levied

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 should

SH.SURESH KUMAR SHARMA.S/O SH. RAKHA RAM,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (3), FAIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

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

penalty u/s 271(1) (b) which was initiated for non-complying notice U/s 142(1) during the assessment proceeding. The amount of Rs.10,000/- is levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed the appeals against both the orders before the ld. CIT(A). But remain unsuccessful. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 6. Both

SH. SURESH KUMAR SHARMA S/O. SH. RAKHA RAM,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), FARIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

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

penalty u/s 271(1) (b) which was initiated for non-complying notice U/s 142(1) during the assessment proceeding. The amount of Rs.10,000/- is levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed the appeals against both the orders before the ld. CIT(A). But remain unsuccessful. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 6. Both

SH. SHAM LAL,CHANDIGARH vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

35,45,120/- u/s. 271 AAA of the Income Tax Act, as well as the order of Learned CIT(A) are both against the facts of the case and are untenable in law. 2. That the worthy CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case and merely relied on order of the AO and without any rhyme & reason

MESERS GANESHA RAM UJAGAR MAL ,NAKODAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAKODAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.386/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 M/S Ganesha Ram Ujagar Mal, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Sh. Dinesh Sarna, Adv., Nakodar B-18, Vakil Building, Model Town Road, Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfg7458E Assessee By : Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Kumar Aggarwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019

section 271(1)(c), penalty is initiated. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order u/s 271(1)(c) without considering the submissions of the assessee and without observing the principles of natural

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