SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order has been assailed before

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order has been assailed before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order has been assailed before

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order has been assailed before

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 .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,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

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. 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

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

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMIOSSIONER 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

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 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

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