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

section 142(1) of the Act. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalties u/s 271(1)(b) of the act amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in each appeal, on account of non-compliance to notice u/s 142(1) on 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 are set aside. 21. In the above view, we accept

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

section 142(1) of the Act. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalties u/s 271(1)(b) of the act amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in each appeal, on account of non-compliance to notice u/s 142(1) on 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 are set aside. 21. In the above view, we accept

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. 80G - which the AO may verify for its authenticity, the AO shall compute the tax sought to be evaded under Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) by reckoning the tax rebate as applicable to a section 80G donation. We decide accordingly. The third and final disallowance qua which the 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

section 271(1) (c) could not imposed and confirming of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) on disallowance of shop expenses and cash discount is unjustified and liable to be deleted. (e) That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard off or disposed off.” 4

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

section 271(1) (c) could not imposed and confirming of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) on disallowance of shop expenses and cash discount is unjustified and liable to be deleted. (e) That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard off or disposed off.” 4

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

4 ITA No. 460./Asr/2017 – A.Y 2001-02 put to notice by the A.O as regards the specific default for which the impugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was sought to be imposed on it, the Ld. AR took us through the copy of the ‘Show Cause’ notice (for short ‘SCN’)’ issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act, dated

SHRI YASH PAUL MALHOTRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, in the light of the above judgement, it is clear that that voluntary disclosure does not absolve the appellant from penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Furthermore, with regards to the penalty imposed on disallowance of personal expenses on account of car expenses and depreciation

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

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

u/s 271(1)(C) is wrong illegal and against facts and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 2. That Ld. AO while imposing the penalty has not considered the facts of the case and proceeded to impose the penalty arbitrarily. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts while confirming the same

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

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

u/s 271(1)(C) is wrong illegal and against facts and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 2. That Ld. AO while imposing the penalty has not considered the facts of the case and proceeded to impose the penalty arbitrarily. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts while confirming the same

SHRI AJAYA KUMAR CHADDA ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

4 I.T.A. No. 146/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 5. Having heard both the sides, and perusal of the record and the impugned order, we find that the AO issued penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 10.08.2017. Admittedly, the said notice was defective one, as both the limbs of section

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 132(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. 8.2 The Ld. AR finally argued that the penalty notice issued, does not spell out under which limb of section 271

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 132(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. 8.2 The Ld. AR finally argued that the penalty notice issued, does not spell out under which limb of section 271

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 132(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. 8.2 The Ld. AR finally argued that the penalty notice issued, does not spell out under which limb of section 271

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 132(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. 8.2 The Ld. AR finally argued that the penalty notice issued, does not spell out under which limb of section 271

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 132(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. 8.2 The Ld. AR finally argued that the penalty notice issued, does not spell out under which limb of section 271

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 132(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. 8.2 The Ld. AR finally argued that the penalty notice issued, does not spell out under which limb of section 271

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 132(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. 8.2 The Ld. AR finally argued that the penalty notice issued, does not spell out under which limb of section 271

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 132(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. 8.2 The Ld. AR finally argued that the penalty notice issued, does not spell out under which limb of section 271