DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

JARNAIL SINGH GILL,JAGRAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JAGRAON

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

Bench: The Tribunal & The Matter Was Remanded Back To Ao For Fresh Adjudication. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed

section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the outset, there is a delay in filing of the appeal as pointed out by the Registry. After hearing both the parties and the considering the affidavit of the assessee placed on record, I find that there was reasonable cause in the delayed filing of the appeal, the same is hereby

JYOTI SHARMA,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, PANCHKULA

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

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

delay had happened while filing the appeal against the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(d) of the Act and in those matters, similar reasons were submitted seeking condonation

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

SMT. SHASHI JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

condone the delay caused in filing the above said Appeal, as there is no mistake on the part of the above said Assessee but the mistake has been on the part of the Counsel of the Assessee.” 7. Further an affidavit of the Ld. counsel for assessee admitting to his mistake on oath was also filed before

SMT. SHASHI JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-VII(2), LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

condone the delay caused in filing the above said Appeal, as there is no mistake on the part of the above said Assessee but the mistake has been on the part of the Counsel of the Assessee.” 7. Further an affidavit of the Ld. counsel for assessee admitting to his mistake on oath was also filed before