ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

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

90,078/-. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) related to quantum appeal and finally being unsuccessful, the quantum appeal was filed before the ITAT, Amritsar Bench. The ITAT quashed the assessment order for violation of provision section 153D of the Act. The penalty order U/s 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

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

90,078/-. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) related to quantum appeal and finally being unsuccessful, the quantum appeal was filed before the ITAT, Amritsar Bench. The ITAT quashed the assessment order for violation of provision section 153D of the Act. The penalty order U/s 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

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

90,078/-. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) related to quantum appeal and finally being unsuccessful, the quantum appeal was filed before the ITAT, Amritsar Bench. The ITAT quashed the assessment order for violation of provision section 153D of the Act. The penalty order U/s 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

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

90,078/-. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) related to quantum appeal and finally being unsuccessful, the quantum appeal was filed before the ITAT, Amritsar Bench. The ITAT quashed the assessment order for violation of provision section 153D of the Act. The penalty order U/s 271

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 2(24BA) of I.T.Act as under: “Manufacture” with its grammatical variations means a change in non-living physical object or article or thing:- a) Resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use, or b) Bringing into existence

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 2(24BA) of I.T.Act as under: “Manufacture” with its grammatical variations means a change in non-living physical object or article or thing:- a) Resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use, or b) Bringing into existence

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 2(24BA) of I.T.Act as under: “Manufacture” with its grammatical variations means a change in non-living physical object or article or thing:- a) Resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use, or b) Bringing into existence

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 2(24BA) of I.T.Act as under: “Manufacture” with its grammatical variations means a change in non-living physical object or article or thing:- a) Resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use, or b) Bringing into existence

M/S. SURYA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,ABOHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayaftfrcf ^T./Ita No. 348/Asr/2023 / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Surya Automobiles Pvt The Dcit, <Shh Circle Ii, Ltd., Near Dav Campus, Bhatinda Hanumangarh Road, Abohar ^|41<^H./Pan No: Aafcs271 In Ul^^Ff/Respondent Appellant

penalty 4. of Rs. 6,90,000/- imposed u/s Section Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income t Tax Act, 1961 (in short

JAMMU & KASHMIR STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.249/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13

90,534/-. The tax was calculated total amount of Rs.1,04,55,018/- on undeclared income. The ld. AO levied penalty of 100%. So, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied Rs.1,04,55,018/-. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has taken both legal and factual ground before

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

271(1) ( c) of the Act , in course of assessment proceedings, both for (i) furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the estimated contract income of Rs. 23.53 lakhs and also (ii) for concealment of particulars of income on the addition of Rs. 90,000/- being the alleged undisclosed truck income u/s 44AE. 7. Penalty subsequently imposed amounting to Rs. 4.18 lakhs

THE BANGA COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER,NAWANSHAHAR, NAWANSHAHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Sood

90,240/- and also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the AO for concealment of inaccurate particulars of income. ITA Nos.358 & 359/Asr./2018 3 ITA Nos.362 & 363/Asr./2018 Banga Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. 6. Being

THE BANGA COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Sood

90,240/- and also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the AO for concealment of inaccurate particulars of income. ITA Nos.358 & 359/Asr./2018 3 ITA Nos.362 & 363/Asr./2018 Banga Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. 6. Being

THE BANGA COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAWANSHAHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Sood

90,240/- and also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the AO for concealment of inaccurate particulars of income. ITA Nos.358 & 359/Asr./2018 3 ITA Nos.362 & 363/Asr./2018 Banga Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. 6. Being

THE BANGA COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Sood

90,240/- and also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the AO for concealment of inaccurate particulars of income. ITA Nos.358 & 359/Asr./2018 3 ITA Nos.362 & 363/Asr./2018 Banga Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. 6. Being

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

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

u/s 271F of IT Act amounting to Rs.5,000. The assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) but CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty on two grounds. 1. That the AR of appellant appear before the AO in the penalty proceedings but has not mentioned about the sale of the property at which the appellant was residing

M/S SHIV KUMAR BAIGARA AND COMPANY ,UDHAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER UDHAMPUR, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No.357/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2001-02

section 145(3), he made an addition for Rs.2,19,111/- on account of low profit. This was made by 2 Shiv Kumar Baigra & Co. v. ITO him by comparing the assessee’s disclosed profit rate of 12.78% (on the turnover of Rs.67.21 lacs), with that of another wine shop at Udhampur (M/s. Mahinder Pal Wine Shop), which had disclosed

SH. SARABJEET SINGH GUMTALA,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(4), AMRITSAR

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.09.2014 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts on the record and this illegality pervades all grounds of appeal and no penalty was imposable. That the Worthy CIT(Appeals) without appreciating completed facts, submissions and legal position has further erred in confirming the decision