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

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

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 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

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

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3), AMRITSAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri L.P Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as no correct charge has been made against the assessee.” As the assessee by raising the additional grounds of appeal has sought adjudication of a legal issue based on the facts borne from the records, therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal

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

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

9. Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee filed copy of the notice dated issued u/s 274 of the Act. We find that the notice dated 22.12.2010, issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 reads as under:- “Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for Assessment Year 2007-08 it appears

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

9. Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee filed copy of the notice dated issued u/s 274 of the Act. We find that the notice dated 22.12.2010, issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 reads as under:- “Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for Assessment Year 2007-08 it appears

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

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 30.06.2009 at the residential premises of the assessee. Survey operations u/s 133A

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

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 30.06.2009 at the residential premises of the assessee. Survey operations u/s 133A

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

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 30.06.2009 at the residential premises of the assessee. Survey operations u/s 133A

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

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 30.06.2009 at the residential premises of the assessee. Survey operations u/s 133A

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

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 30.06.2009 at the residential premises of the assessee. Survey operations u/s 133A