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

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

271(1)(c) could be levied as the proceedings initiated were not valid and in accordance with the Act. 3. That on merits also no penalty is called for. AO made an addition of Rs. 42,54,123/- on the basis of Form 26AS and applied the rate of 10%. CIT(A) reduced the addition

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

section 54 of the Act, the entire capital gain arising from the assets from the transfer of land had escaped assessment. Therefore, he issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and made addition of the capital gains of Rs. 1,83,75,000/- in the hands of the assessee. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

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

section 54 of the Act, the entire capital gain arising from the assets from the transfer of land had escaped assessment. Therefore, he issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and made addition of the capital gains of Rs. 1,83,75,000/- in the hands of the assessee. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

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

41 & 42/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sh. Amit Mahajan, Dy. CIT 51, B/C Gandhi Nagar, Central Circle, Jammu Jammu. Vs. [PAN:AKMPM 9681M] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.43, 44 & 45/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sh. Sumit Mahajan, Dy. CIT 51, B/C Gandhi Nagar, Central Circle, Jammu Jammu. Vs. [PAN:AKMPM 9682J] (Appellant) (Respondent

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

41 & 42/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sh. Amit Mahajan, Dy. CIT 51, B/C Gandhi Nagar, Central Circle, Jammu Jammu. Vs. [PAN:AKMPM 9681M] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.43, 44 & 45/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sh. Sumit Mahajan, Dy. CIT 51, B/C Gandhi Nagar, Central Circle, Jammu Jammu. Vs. [PAN:AKMPM 9682J] (Appellant) (Respondent

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

41 & 42/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sh. Amit Mahajan, Dy. CIT 51, B/C Gandhi Nagar, Central Circle, Jammu Jammu. Vs. [PAN:AKMPM 9681M] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.43, 44 & 45/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sh. Sumit Mahajan, Dy. CIT 51, B/C Gandhi Nagar, Central Circle, Jammu Jammu. Vs. [PAN:AKMPM 9682J] (Appellant) (Respondent

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

41 & 42/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sh. Amit Mahajan, Dy. CIT 51, B/C Gandhi Nagar, Central Circle, Jammu Jammu. Vs. [PAN:AKMPM 9681M] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.43, 44 & 45/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sh. Sumit Mahajan, Dy. CIT 51, B/C Gandhi Nagar, Central Circle, Jammu Jammu. Vs. [PAN:AKMPM 9682J] (Appellant) (Respondent

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

41 & 42/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sh. Amit Mahajan, Dy. CIT 51, B/C Gandhi Nagar, Central Circle, Jammu Jammu. Vs. [PAN:AKMPM 9681M] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.43, 44 & 45/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sh. Sumit Mahajan, Dy. CIT 51, B/C Gandhi Nagar, Central Circle, Jammu Jammu. Vs. [PAN:AKMPM 9682J] (Appellant) (Respondent

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

41 & 42/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sh. Amit Mahajan, Dy. CIT 51, B/C Gandhi Nagar, Central Circle, Jammu Jammu. Vs. [PAN:AKMPM 9681M] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.43, 44 & 45/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sh. Sumit Mahajan, Dy. CIT 51, B/C Gandhi Nagar, Central Circle, Jammu Jammu. Vs. [PAN:AKMPM 9682J] (Appellant) (Respondent

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

41 & 42/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sh. Amit Mahajan, Dy. CIT 51, B/C Gandhi Nagar, Central Circle, Jammu Jammu. Vs. [PAN:AKMPM 9681M] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.43, 44 & 45/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sh. Sumit Mahajan, Dy. CIT 51, B/C Gandhi Nagar, Central Circle, Jammu Jammu. Vs. [PAN:AKMPM 9682J] (Appellant) (Respondent

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

41 & 42/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sh. Amit Mahajan, Dy. CIT 51, B/C Gandhi Nagar, Central Circle, Jammu Jammu. Vs. [PAN:AKMPM 9681M] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.43, 44 & 45/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sh. Sumit Mahajan, Dy. CIT 51, B/C Gandhi Nagar, Central Circle, Jammu Jammu. Vs. [PAN:AKMPM 9682J] (Appellant) (Respondent

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

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

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

u/s. 274 without specifying any particular limb of the provision of s. 271(1)(c), though the same must be specified while imposing the penalty. How does then, this, one wonders, supports the assessee’s case? The proposition is unexceptional as the satisfaction recorded at the time of issue of notice, and which confers jurisdiction for the same

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

41[section 271, section 271A, 42[section 271AA,] section 271B42[, section 271BA], 43[section 271BB,] section 271C, 44[section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, 45[section 271F, 46[section 271FA,] 46a[section 271FAB,] 47[section 271FB,] 48[section 271G,]] 48a[section 271GA,] 49[section 271H,] 49a[section 271-I,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

section 10 of the Act;] , (b) for communications delivered or transmitted electronically:- (i) email address available in the income-tax return furnished by the addressee to which the communication relates; or (ii) the email address available in the last income-tax return furnished by the addressee; or (iii) in the case of addressee being a company, email address