DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of section 270A shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of section 270A shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of section 270A shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of section 270A shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of section 270A shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section

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

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

delay in ITA No. 343/Chd/2020 and 344/Chd/2020 is condoned. 5 3. The facts in brief, are that there was a search and seizure operations conducted u/s 132 on 02.09.2011 in 'Bajwa Group of Cases. During the course of search seizure, the assessee offered a sum of Rs. 28,56,53,000/- for the Asstt. Year 2011-12 and such disclosure

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

delay in ITA No. 343/Chd/2020 and 344/Chd/2020 is condoned. 5 3. The facts in brief, are that there was a search and seizure operations conducted u/s 132 on 02.09.2011 in 'Bajwa Group of Cases. During the course of search seizure, the assessee offered a sum of Rs. 28,56,53,000/- for the Asstt. Year 2011-12 and such disclosure

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

delay in ITA No. 343/Chd/2020 and 344/Chd/2020 is condoned. 5 3. The facts in brief, are that there was a search and seizure operations conducted u/s 132 on 02.09.2011 in 'Bajwa Group of Cases. During the course of search seizure, the assessee offered a sum of Rs. 28,56,53,000/- for the Asstt. Year 2011-12 and such disclosure

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)

section 271(1)(b) of the Act where again, for similar reasons the delay in filing the appeal was condoned by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. I therefore find that there are divergent views taken by the Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the present appeal and the other two appeals whereas the reasons and explanation submitted by the assessee seeking

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

SUKHDEV RAJ,SIRSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

delay of 181 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. In the present appeal the assessee has raised following grounds: 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2. The Registry has pointed out that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 63 days. The Assessee moved an application dt. 21/09/2019 for condonation of the delay by stating therein as under: Sub: Request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal bearing No. 1254/ Chandi/2019 in the case of M/s Shaheed Kartar Singh Sarabha

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

2 emanates from a penalty order dated 20.06.2019 passed under 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

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

2 emanates from a penalty order dated 20.06.2019 passed under 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

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

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

2. ITA No.925/CHD/2025 emerges out of a quantum proceeding against an assessment order dated 05.01.2024 passed u/s 147 read with 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

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

2. ITA No.925/CHD/2025 emerges out of a quantum proceeding against an assessment order dated 05.01.2024 passed u/s 147 read with 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