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

2. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting penalty u/s 271 (l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of Hon’ble ITAT’s order setting aside the assessment order and the subsequent order I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 3 Assessment Years

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

2. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting penalty u/s 271 (l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of Hon’ble ITAT’s order setting aside the assessment order and the subsequent order I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 3 Assessment Years

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

2. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting penalty u/s 271 (l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of Hon’ble ITAT’s order setting aside the assessment order and the subsequent order I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 3 Assessment Years

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

2. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting penalty u/s 271 (l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of Hon’ble ITAT’s order setting aside the assessment order and the subsequent order I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 3 Assessment Years

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 'the Act') of the Act. During the proceeding before us, the Id. Counsel for the Assessee has filed written submissions which is reproduced as under: - “That the appellant is a private limited, company engaged in the business

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

2. The penalty order is bad in law, as the Ld. AO is himself not clear whether the penalty is levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income. 3. The penalty order is bad in law, as the basis of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) ( c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 & imposition

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

penalty imposed may please be deleted. 15. Thereafter, the Ld AR further explained that addition of Rs. 90,000/- has arisen because the assessee being the owner of a truck , (goods carriage) during the FY 2014-15,the provisions of section 44AE (2) of the Act , has been applied , which itself is a presumptive provision, and the said addition

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