M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD.,KHARAR vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

section 271(1) (c) of the Act, the tax on the surrendered income along with the interest is required to be paid immediately and in any case before the due date of filing of the return. 2.4 Since these are cross appeals by the assessee and the department and the facts are common in both the appeals related to penalty

ACIT,CC-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD., KHARAR

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

section 271(1) (c) of the Act, the tax on the surrendered income along with the interest is required to be paid immediately and in any case before the due date of filing of the return. 2.4 Since these are cross appeals by the assessee and the department and the facts are common in both the appeals related to penalty

ACIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD., KHARAR

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

section 271(1) (c) of the Act, the tax on the surrendered income along with the interest is required to be paid immediately and in any case before the due date of filing of the return. 2.4 Since these are cross appeals by the assessee and the department and the facts are common in both the appeals related to penalty

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY ,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

JATINDER NATH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. First Appellate Authority has decided quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal by way of separate orders on 30.04.2024. First we take quantum appeal. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has applied for an adjournment however, after perusal of the record carefully, we are not inclined to grant any adjournment

JATINDER NATH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), LUDHIANA, RISHI NAGAR, LUDHIANA

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. First Appellate Authority has decided quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal by way of separate orders on 30.04.2024. First we take quantum appeal. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has applied for an adjournment however, after perusal of the record carefully, we are not inclined to grant any adjournment

EMMBROS AUTOCOMP LIMITED,BADDI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PARWANOO

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1172/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Emmbros Autocomp The Acit, बनाम Limited, Village Katha, Circle, Baddi, Parwanoo Vs. Distt. Solan 173220 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaace3489Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Raman Tiwari, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemptions [‘(Cit(A)’]

condoning the delay of 79 days against the order passed under section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. DCIT

SH. GURPREET SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI

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

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the imposition of penalty of Rs.31,21,238/- u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act which is illegal, arbitrary & unjustified. 3. That the penalty imposed under section

BALDEV SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARDS 1, FATEHBAD

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 813/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Baldev Singh, Vs. The Ito, बनाम M/S Baldev Singh Jarnail Ward-1, Singh, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad Dharsul Kalan, Tehsil Tohana, Fatehabad

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeals on merits. 8. The Assessee has taken five grounds of appeal out of which Ground No. 5 is a general which does not call for recording of any specific findings. 9. In Ground No.3, Assessee has pleaded that the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in charging the tax u/s 115BBE

INDER PAL SINGH LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED SATNAM SINGH 171789, STREET NO.8, GURU TEG BAHADUR JAGRAON,PUNJAB vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JAGRAON , PUNJAB

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

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

271 DA to the tune of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- on account of alleged violation of section 269ST. 2. That no proper or reasonable opportunity has been afforded to the appellant to represent the case since no notice was received on the email of assessee or on the email of his counsel or through physical mode. That the levy

M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 125/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Valco Industries Ltd., Vs The Dcit, Sco 37, Sector 26, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacv5195J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Monga, Ca Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax\nAct, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty\nproceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges\nout from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax\nAct, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty\nproceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act.\n\n3. First, we take the quantum

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections\nare dismissed

condone the alleged delay\nand proceed to decide the Cross Objections on merit in both\nthe assessment years.\n7. The Revenue has taken four grounds of appeal in each\n assessment year. In brief, its grievance revolves around a\nsingle issue and the issues pleaded in rest of the grounds are\nperipheral arguments qua the central point. The common\nissue

ACME BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 491/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Vs. The Dcit, Acme Builders Private Limited, Group Housing No. 10, बनाम Central Circe 1(1), Jlpl, Sector 91, Chandigarh Mohali Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaica9869Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

condonation of delay. 5. The grounds of appeal taken by the Assessee are as under: - 1) That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing an ex-parte order under section 201 r.w.s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2) That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income

MAHESH T. PRASANA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-1, PARWANOO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D.Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 419/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

Section 271(1)(c) of the ITA 419/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 6 Income Tax Act. 6. We have considered the submissions filed by the Revenue on this issue as well as the detailed affidavit filed by the assessee on this issue of condonation of delay