DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

13. A perusal of the above provisions reveals sub section (3) to section 271AA of the Act bars the levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of undisclosed income referred to in sub section (1). The undisclosed income has also been defined under the provisions of section 271AAA

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

13. A perusal of the above provisions reveals sub section (3) to section 271AA of the Act bars the levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of undisclosed income referred to in sub section (1). The undisclosed income has also been defined under the provisions of section 271AAA

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

13. A perusal of the above provisions reveals sub section (3) to section 271AA of the Act bars the levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of undisclosed income referred to in sub section (1). The undisclosed income has also been defined under the provisions of section 271AAA

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

13. A perusal of the above provisions reveals sub section (3) to section 271AA of the Act bars the levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of undisclosed income referred to in sub section (1). The undisclosed income has also been defined under the provisions of section 271AAA

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

13. A perusal of the above provisions reveals sub section (3) to section 271AA of the Act bars the levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of undisclosed income referred to in sub section (1). The undisclosed income has also been defined under the provisions of section 271AAA

AJAY KUMAR,FATEHABAD, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, FATEHABAD, FATEHABAD, HARYANA

C,\nChandigarh-160017\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard-3\nYamunanagar, Haryana\nस्थायी लेखा सं. / PAN NO: ADPPC5697M\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nShri Ajay Jain, C.A (Virtual)\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT,DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 6 /Chd/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19\nShri Rakesh Kumar\nS/o Shri Som Nath

DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR vs. M/S SYMBIOSIS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD., YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date As Prescribed In Section 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Whereas The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income After The Due Date.

13. In the present case, as considered above, the reason for the late filing of the return was indubitably beyond the control of the assessee for the reasons contained in the affidavit furnished by the Managing Director of the assessee company, as discussed in extensor herein above, that being so, in the light of the findings of the Tribunal

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

M/S SHAHEED KARTAR SINGH SARABHA CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD.),LUDHIANA vs. CIT(A)-4, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay and appeal is admitted. 7. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1. That order passed u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 250(6) by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much as she was not justified to direct the levy

THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, C-1, CHANDIGARH

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

c) the statement referred to in clause (a) is furnished on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 for furnishing the return of income for the previous year: Provided that in computing the period of five years referred to in clause (a), the period during which the income could not be applied