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

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

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

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question