LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment and the assessee cannot escape

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment and the assessee cannot escape

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment and the assessee cannot escape

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment and the assessee cannot escape

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment and the assessee cannot escape

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment and the assessee cannot escape

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment and the assessee cannot escape

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment and the assessee cannot escape

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment and the assessee cannot escape

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings and such disclosure is accepted by the revenue without any change then no case of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be made out against the assessee. The case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (393 ITR 1) wherein

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings and such disclosure is accepted by the revenue without any change then no case of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be made out against the assessee. The case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (393 ITR 1) wherein

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings and such disclosure is accepted by the revenue without any change then no case of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be made out against the assessee. The case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (393 ITR 1) wherein

HIMANI GOYA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings and such disclosure is accepted by the revenue without any change then no case of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be made out against the assessee. The case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (393 ITR 1) wherein

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings and such disclosure is accepted by the revenue without any change then no case of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be made out against the assessee. The case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (393 ITR 1) wherein

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

reassessment are held to be devoid of any merits and substance and therefore, same are as such rejected. 12. In ground no. 3 & 4, the assessee has challenged approval granted by the CIT u/s 151 for issuing notice u/s 147 as bad in law. This issue of approval granted u/s 151 of the Income

SHRI TAJINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BATALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee, on the basis of information available in the ITBA system criv/ vruhigh risk cases, pointing to the allegation of huge financial transaction undertaken by the assessee involving various bank accounts and receipt of funds from one ‘YathuriAssociates” amounting to Rs. 12.21 Crores (Twelve crores twenty one lakhs approx. ) during

SHRI TAJINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BATALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee, on the basis of information available in the ITBA system criv/ vruhigh risk cases, pointing to the allegation of huge financial transaction undertaken by the assessee involving various bank accounts and receipt of funds from one ‘YathuriAssociates” amounting to Rs. 12.21 Crores (Twelve crores twenty one lakhs approx. ) during

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

reassessment proceedings, along with copies of letter of intent issued on 21st September, 2015 by DRAIPL group for the fly over construction and LOI dated 17th September, 2016, for the construction of ROB , cash flow summary for the period August 2015 to March 2017, depicting progressive month wise expenditure and receipts from DRAIPL group against work executed at the both

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

reassessment proceedings, along with copies of letter of intent issued on 21st September, 2015 by DRAIPL group for the fly over construction and LOI dated 17th September, 2016, for the construction of ROB , cash flow summary for the period August 2015 to March 2017, depicting progressive month wise expenditure and receipts from DRAIPL group against work executed at the both