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

80,980/- 7. 17/10/2016 -Do- 39,580/- 8. 17/10/2016 -Do- 34,000/- 9. 17/10/2016 -Do- 25,29,160/- 10. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,85,400/- ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts of the ITA No.46/Asr/2017 are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was conducted on dated

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

80,980/- 7. 17/10/2016 -Do- 39,580/- 8. 17/10/2016 -Do- 34,000/- 9. 17/10/2016 -Do- 25,29,160/- 10. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,85,400/- ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts of the ITA No.46/Asr/2017 are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was conducted on dated

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

80,980/- 7. 17/10/2016 -Do- 39,580/- 8. 17/10/2016 -Do- 34,000/- 9. 17/10/2016 -Do- 25,29,160/- 10. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,85,400/- ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts of the ITA No.46/Asr/2017 are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was conducted on dated

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

80,980/- 7. 17/10/2016 -Do- 39,580/- 8. 17/10/2016 -Do- 34,000/- 9. 17/10/2016 -Do- 25,29,160/- 10. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,85,400/- ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts of the ITA No.46/Asr/2017 are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was conducted on dated

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

80,980/- 7. 17/10/2016 -Do- 39,580/- 8. 17/10/2016 -Do- 34,000/- 9. 17/10/2016 -Do- 25,29,160/- 10. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,85,400/- ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts of the ITA No.46/Asr/2017 are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was conducted on dated

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

80,980/- 7. 17/10/2016 -Do- 39,580/- 8. 17/10/2016 -Do- 34,000/- 9. 17/10/2016 -Do- 25,29,160/- 10. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,85,400/- ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts of the ITA No.46/Asr/2017 are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was conducted on dated

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

80,980/- 7. 17/10/2016 -Do- 39,580/- 8. 17/10/2016 -Do- 34,000/- 9. 17/10/2016 -Do- 25,29,160/- 10. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,85,400/- ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts of the ITA No.46/Asr/2017 are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was conducted on dated

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 4 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned orders. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the rival contention and material on record referred thereof. The Ld AR stated at the bar that

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 4 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned orders. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the rival contention and material on record referred thereof. The Ld AR stated at the bar that

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 4 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned orders. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the rival contention and material on record referred thereof. The Ld AR stated at the bar that

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMIOSSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 4 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned orders. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the rival contention and material on record referred thereof. The Ld AR stated at the bar that

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 4 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned orders. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the rival contention and material on record referred thereof. The Ld AR stated at the bar that

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 4 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned orders. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the rival contention and material on record referred thereof. The Ld AR stated at the bar that

MESERS MALWA MOTORS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

80,000, i.e., the minimum penalty imposable of Rs. 79,890 on the balance addition/s for Rs. 2,58,548. The same found endorsement in first appeal by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee had been unable to discharge the onus on it under Explanation 1 to sec. 271(1)(c). The plea as to the addition being agreed

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

80 lac (supra) a/w consideration in kind, i.e, one furnished flat admeasuring 250 sq. ft worth Rs. 1,01,25,000/-, therefore, his income of Rs. 1,81,25,000/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain (“LTCG”, for short) had escaped assessment, reopened his case u/s 147 of the Act. Observing, that the Notice u/s

SHRI BARJINDERPAL 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

80 lac (supra) a/w consideration in kind, i.e, one furnished flat admeasuring 250 sq. ft worth Rs. 1,01,25,000/-, therefore, his income of Rs. 1,81,25,000/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain (“LTCG”, for short) had escaped assessment, reopened his case u/s 147 of the Act. Observing, that the Notice u/s

JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

80 (P&H) it has been held that it cannot be said that in every case where particulars of income are inaccurate, penalty must follow Penalty is imposed only when there is some element of deliberate default and not a mere mistake the finding have been recorded on facts that the furnishing of inaccurate particulars was simply a mistake

SMT. PRITPAL KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3), JALANDHAR

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

80 days is condoned, in view of the bonafide reason of the medical ground and accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3 Pritpal Kaur v. ITO 4. The grounds raised are vague and not specific to issue. However, the assessee’s main grievance is that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly imposed penalty of Rs.5000/- u/s 271F