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

9. A perusal of the above provisions of u/s. 271(1)(b) shows that the Parliament has used the words "may" and not "shall", thereby making their intention clear in as much as that levy of Penalty is discretionary and not automatic. The said conclusion is further justified by Section

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

9. A perusal of the above provisions of u/s. 271(1)(b) shows that the Parliament has used the words "may" and not "shall", thereby making their intention clear in as much as that levy of Penalty is discretionary and not automatic. The said conclusion is further justified by Section

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

9 SCC 599 [317 ITR 1].’ (emphasis, ours) There was, therefore, no ambiguity in law for the Parliament to have stepped in by introducing section 271(1B), deeming a satisfaction where the order of assessment or reassessment contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s

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. 7. The Ld. Addl. CIT (DR) stands by the impugned orders. However, he has admitted the fact that the disallowance of shop expenses was on estimate basis@ 50% of such

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. 7. The Ld. Addl. CIT (DR) stands by the impugned orders. However, he has admitted the fact that the disallowance of shop expenses was on estimate basis@ 50% of such

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

Section 271(l)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act itself is bad in law. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the C1T(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty so levied. 9. Before us, no distinguishing feature in the facts of the case in the-year under consideration and that of earlier year has been pointed

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

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

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. The Id. counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO imposed penalty in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. The Ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the notice dated 4th August, 2016 issued to the assessee under section 274 read with section 271

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

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

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. The Id. counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO imposed penalty in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. The Ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the notice dated 4th August, 2016 issued to the assessee under section 274 read with section 271

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

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 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been initiated.” In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we concur with the ld. A.R, that the A.O had both in the body of the assessment order, as well as vide his “SCN”, dated 19.02.2004 failed to put the assessee firm to notice as regards the specific default

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

u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified. 6 Sukhdev Singh v. ITO 6. Having heard the ld. additional CIT DR, perusal of record and impugned order, we find that undisputedly, assessee’s income has been estimated considering the deposits made in the bank account under section 44 A.D. of the Income Tax Act. In our view, penalty under 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

penalty based on Explanation 5A of Section 271(I)(C) of the Act and submitted the co-ordinate bench of ITAT at Delhi has decided both the appeal on merit as well as legal ground qua defective notice u/s 274 of the Act in favour of the assessee. Tripat Kaur, New Delhi v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA No.1829

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

penalty based on Explanation 5A of Section 271(I)(C) of the Act and submitted the co-ordinate bench of ITAT at Delhi has decided both the appeal on merit as well as legal ground qua defective notice u/s 274 of the Act in favour of the assessee. Tripat Kaur, New Delhi v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA No.1829

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

penalty based on Explanation 5A of Section 271(I)(C) of the Act and submitted the co-ordinate bench of ITAT at Delhi has decided both the appeal on merit as well as legal ground qua defective notice u/s 274 of the Act in favour of the assessee. Tripat Kaur, New Delhi v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA No.1829

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

penalty based on Explanation 5A of Section 271(I)(C) of the Act and submitted the co-ordinate bench of ITAT at Delhi has decided both the appeal on merit as well as legal ground qua defective notice u/s 274 of the Act in favour of the assessee. Tripat Kaur, New Delhi v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA No.1829

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

penalty based on Explanation 5A of Section 271(I)(C) of the Act and submitted the co-ordinate bench of ITAT at Delhi has decided both the appeal on merit as well as legal ground qua defective notice u/s 274 of the Act in favour of the assessee. Tripat Kaur, New Delhi v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA No.1829

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

penalty based on Explanation 5A of Section 271(I)(C) of the Act and submitted the co-ordinate bench of ITAT at Delhi has decided both the appeal on merit as well as legal ground qua defective notice u/s 274 of the Act in favour of the assessee. Tripat Kaur, New Delhi v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA No.1829

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

penalty based on Explanation 5A of Section 271(I)(C) of the Act and submitted the co-ordinate bench of ITAT at Delhi has decided both the appeal on merit as well as legal ground qua defective notice u/s 274 of the Act in favour of the assessee. Tripat Kaur, New Delhi v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA No.1829