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

5) TMI 1100 - ITAT DELHI SMT. REKHA RANI, VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI. Penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) - non appearing on the different dates of hearing before the Assessing Officer in response to notice issued under Section 143(2) - Held that:- The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could not be imposed

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

5) TMI 1100 - ITAT DELHI SMT. REKHA RANI, VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI. Penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) - non appearing on the different dates of hearing before the Assessing Officer in response to notice issued under Section 143(2) - Held that:- The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could not be imposed

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

5 read with section 145 of the Act. The assessee did not furnish any explanation during the assessment proceedings. Interest income was accordingly assessed, and penalty proceedings initiated. Under the circumstances, the AO’s satisfaction for the levy of penalty u/s. 271

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

5. The Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on disallowance made on a/c of shop expenses at Gulzar Singh Gurbachan Singh v. ITO Rs.64949/- and Rs.119114/- against estimated disallowance made out of the appellant claim of shop expenses at Rs.129898/- and Rs.238228/- in respect of the Assessment Year

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

5. The Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on disallowance made on a/c of shop expenses at Gulzar Singh Gurbachan Singh v. ITO Rs.64949/- and Rs.119114/- against estimated disallowance made out of the appellant claim of shop expenses at Rs.129898/- and Rs.238228/- in respect of the Assessment Year

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

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

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

section 275(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. That when the ld. A.O had not specified the charge and vaguely initiated penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have knocked down the levy of penalty on this very ground

SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH PROP KARNAIL SINGH SUKHDEV SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), AMRITSAR

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

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

Section 271(1)(c) that the decision in Dilip N. Shroff (supra) was overruled." 8. In view of the above, we hold that the observation and finding of the Ld. CIT(A) are perverse to the facts on record in respect of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs.39,504/- imposed

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 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act has not specified as to which limb of the penalty proposed is to be levied.” The assessee in support of raising additional ground also submitted that the legal ground can be taken at any stage in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of NTPC

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 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act has not specified as to which limb of the penalty proposed is to be levied.” The assessee in support of raising additional ground also submitted that the legal ground can be taken at any stage in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of NTPC

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 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act has not specified as to which limb of the penalty proposed is to be levied.” The assessee in support of raising additional ground also submitted that the legal ground can be taken at any stage in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of NTPC

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 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act has not specified as to which limb of the penalty proposed is to be levied.” The assessee in support of raising additional ground also submitted that the legal ground can be taken at any stage in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of NTPC

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 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act has not specified as to which limb of the penalty proposed is to be levied.” The assessee in support of raising additional ground also submitted that the legal ground can be taken at any stage in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of NTPC

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 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act has not specified as to which limb of the penalty proposed is to be levied.” The assessee in support of raising additional ground also submitted that the legal ground can be taken at any stage in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of NTPC

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 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act has not specified as to which limb of the penalty proposed is to be levied.” The assessee in support of raising additional ground also submitted that the legal ground can be taken at any stage in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of NTPC