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

271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F are deleted. - Appeal of assessee allowed. b) 3 SOT 414 (KOL.)IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’Mrs. Manju Katarukav.Income-tax Officer Section 271F, read with section 273B, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to furnish return of income - Assessment year 2000-01 - Whether penalty under section 271F

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

271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F are deleted. - Appeal of assessee allowed. b) 3 SOT 414 (KOL.)IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’Mrs. Manju Katarukav.Income-tax Officer Section 271F, read with section 273B, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to furnish return of income - Assessment year 2000-01 - Whether penalty under section 271F

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) becomes leviable, is even otherwise not maintainable in the facts of the case. This is, as apparent, and as also evident from the assessment and the penalty order, there is an omission, i.e., a concealment of particulars of income, in respect of non-returning of interest income, as well as a commission in filing its return

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

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

u/s 271(1)(C) is wrong illegal and against facts and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 2. That Ld. AO while imposing the penalty has not considered the facts of the case and proceeded to impose the penalty arbitrarily. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts while confirming the same

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

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

u/s 271(1)(C) is wrong illegal and against facts and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 2. That Ld. AO while imposing the penalty has not considered the facts of the case and proceeded to impose the penalty arbitrarily. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts while confirming the same

MESERS MALWA MOTORS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

u/s. 271(1)(c) (also see Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC), clarifying it to be always the position). 3.4 The first addition is qua a set of incomes, not disclosed, even as the same stand reflected, upon deduction of tax at source thereon, in Form 26AS, w.r.t. which the AO discovered the failure

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

u/s 271(1)(c)of the Act, 1961, dated 17.03.2020 (imposing a penalty of Rs.4.18 lakhs). 2 I.T.A. No. 70/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 2. Brief facts emerging are that the assessee is a transport contractor under FCI (Food Corporation of India)engaged in the business of providing goods carriage (trucks)for transportation of food grains from their godowns

M/S. SURJA RAM & SONS,MALOUT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.598(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2006-07

271(1) (c) deserves to the quashed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceeding, it was noticed that the assessee had accepted credits in the accounts of the partners viz. Sh. Parhlad Kumar to the tune of Rs.9,30,833/- and Sh. Amar Kumar to the tune of Rs.33

SH. RABINDER SINGH WANN,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(3),, AMRITSAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No.552/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09

TDS)) was though not claimed credit of by the assessee per his return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO), upon confirming the interest credit to the assessee by Sahara, brought the same to tax, also initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271

V R A COTTON MILLS.,ABOHAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

TDS was effected payment amounting to Rs.1,23,96,887/- made to the appellant’s export house contractor M/s. Narendra Logistic Pvt. Ltd. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that order impugned herein is based on logical reasoning and does not suffer from any illegality, perversity

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS,), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13. Considering the all three appeals are being adjudicated together. Therefore, we are taking ITA No. 173/Asr/2017 is a lead case. The assessee has taken the following grounds: - “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT-A erred in upholding the null

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13. Considering the all three appeals are being adjudicated together. Therefore, we are taking ITA No. 173/Asr/2017 is a lead case. The assessee has taken the following grounds: - “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT-A erred in upholding the null

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13. Considering the all three appeals are being adjudicated together. Therefore, we are taking ITA No. 173/Asr/2017 is a lead case. The assessee has taken the following grounds: - “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT-A erred in upholding the null

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13. Considering the all three appeals are being adjudicated together. Therefore, we are taking ITA No. 173/Asr/2017 is a lead case. The assessee has taken the following grounds: - “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT-A erred in upholding the null

SH. AMRINDER SINGH DHIMAN,NAKODAR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE PHAGWARA, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS has not been deducted, therefore, this payment is not allowable as deduction while computing the income chargeable under the head "profits of business or profession". e. In view of these facts, the said amount of Rs.2,33,432/- is hereby disallowed u/s 40(aj(ia) and added back to total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

M/S EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD. ,PATHANKOT vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-6,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

271(1)(c) levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the said year on 13/3/2015, by the ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 03/02/2017. (AY 2006-07) Embrocia Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy CIT 2.1 The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee-company sold its’ feed mill Unit during the relevant year for a lump-sum consideration

MESERS EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD,PATHANKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

271(1)(c) levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the said year on 13/3/2015, by the ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 03/02/2017. (AY 2006-07) Embrocia Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy CIT 2.1 The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee-company sold its’ feed mill Unit during the relevant year for a lump-sum consideration

MR. TIRLOK NATH MAHAJAN,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

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

271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case. The Ld. AR submitted that in the quantum appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the facts regarding the filing of computation of income showing the interest income of Rs.10, 78,701 with the details of TDS deducted of Rs. 1,07,870/- u/s 194A