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

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

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

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

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

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) or sub-section (2) of section 272A

SH. YASH PAUL KHANNA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.645(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2008-09

section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30-08-2013 without striking off the irrelevant words, apparently goes to prove that the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing the notice u/s 274/271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying whether the assessee has concealed ''particulars of income" or assessee has furnished "inaccurate ITA No.645 /Asr/2016

MEASAGE. SURINDER SAT AGRO FOODS,JALALABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

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

section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the validity of the proceedings initiated by the AO u/s 147/148 because no proper satisfaction as prescribed u/s 151 was recorded by the Pr. CIT that the case of the assessee was fit for issue of notice u/s

M/S SURINDER SAT AGRO FOODS ,JALALABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

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

section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the validity of the proceedings initiated by the AO u/s 147/148 because no proper satisfaction as prescribed u/s 151 was recorded by the Pr. CIT that the case of the assessee was fit for issue of notice u/s

MEASEG. SURINDER SAT AGRO FOODS ,JALALABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

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

section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the validity of the proceedings initiated by the AO u/s 147/148 because no proper satisfaction as prescribed u/s 151 was recorded by the Pr. CIT that the case of the assessee was fit for issue of notice u/s

V R A COTTON MILLS.,ABOHAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

42,58,665/-. 4.1 In the return of income, the assessee has also claimed deduction u/s 80IB @ 30% of the gross total income of Rs.65,40,056/-. The Assessing Officer reckoned that the gross total income included “other income” at Rs.53,15,330/- which could not be said to be derived from Industrial undertaking and while computing the allowable deduction

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S