SHRI JASHANDEEP SINGH SIDHU,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. I.T.A. No. 310/Asr/2019 2 & ITA No.11/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. The ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law by upholding the validity of service of notice was neither received by the assessee (as he was living in Canada during the said period

SHRI YASH PAUL MALHOTRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

271(1)(c) deals with two specific offences, viz., concealment of particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Offence of concealment is a direct attempt to hide an item of income or a portion thereof from the knowledge of the Income-tax Authorities. The latter is an offence of disclosing the income but giving inaccurate particulars thereof

SHRI VARINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BATALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

271(1 )(c) without application of mind and without appreciating the facts of the case. As such the order of the CIT(A) is bad in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be cancelled. 4. That there was no justification for levying the penalty by invoking the provisions of section 68

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 133/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20

68 of the I.T.Act to be taxed as per provisions of Section 115BBE of the I.T.Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL 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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

M/S. KING ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meenai.T.A. No. 523/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2005-06

68 was inserted by Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 01.04.2013. Even according to clause (xvi) of section 2(24) of the Act, this consideration received for issue of shares as exceeds the fare market value of the shares referred to in clause (viib) of sub-section 2 of section 56 could be treated as income. However, no such

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

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

271, on the question of recording satisfaction by the cpmpetent authority u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act has held that- “………………………the case before us is entirely different. We have found that the reasons recorded by the AO justify the initiation of proceedings under Sections 147 and 148. As the Principal Commissioner agreed with these reasons

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 4 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned orders. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the rival contention and material on record referred thereof. The Ld AR stated

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 4 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned orders. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the rival contention and material on record referred thereof. The Ld AR stated