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. 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. SH. KULWANT 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

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

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

SH. BALWAN SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 21-03-05 & 28-11-08 respectively and relate to the same assessment year (in short referred to as A.Y) i.e 1995-96. 2. Initially both the appeals had been dismissed by the ITAT on limitation grounds, not condoning the delay in filing of the same, vide their order dated

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

SMT. RENU JAIN,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO-WARD-3(3), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Us:

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. As is discernible from the records, it was the claim of the assessee that as the impugned order passed by the A.O. under section 271(1

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

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

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR JAIN,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 190/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, The Ito, Ward 2(3), बनाम Chandigarh Flat No.222, Orbit Apartments, 6Th Floor, Zirakpur "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Advpj6719P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that the assessee came to know about the passing of the appellate order. Thereafter, the assessee applied for certifiedof the order of the CIT(A) which was provided to him on 20.2.2019 and the appeal was filed immediately within the period of limitation. The above averments made by the assessee

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

SHRI DARBARA SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the issue of taxability of interest income on FDR and saving account to the tune of Rs. 1,28,615/- as the same being lower than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. 3. The Appellant craves permission to file/raise/amend any other ground of appeal at the time