DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

274 of paperbook volume 2). The Respondent has settled the same under VSV Scheme as no tax impact involved. 2 2007-08 1,02,69,448 Service Foreign travelling The Hon'ble Tribunal agreement dated expenditure disallowed remanded the issue April 15, 2002 alleging that the back to the DRP, Delhi entered with Respondent is not to pass a speaking

HIMALAYAN BUDDHIST CULTURAL ASSOCIATION,KULLU vs. ACIT,CIRCLE/DCIT CPC,BENGLURU, MANDI

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

Bench: Due Date Of Filling Of Income Tax Return Was On Bonafide Grounds, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Condoning The Delay.

delay in furnishing of the Form No. 10, it could had been condoned because the A.O. never pointed out the defect before disallowing the benefit under section 11(2) of the Act to the assessee. He requested to restore the issue back to the file of the A.O. to allow the claim after verification. The reliance was placed

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

274 as passed by the Assessing Officer vide order, dated 28.09.2017, wherein, the Assessing officer has levied a penalty of Rs. 2,88,65,300/- against which the assessee filed an appeal before 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

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

274 as passed by the Assessing Officer vide order, dated 28.09.2017, wherein, the Assessing officer has levied a penalty of Rs. 2,88,65,300/- against which the assessee filed an appeal before 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

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

274 as passed by the Assessing Officer vide order, dated 28.09.2017, wherein, the Assessing officer has levied a penalty of Rs. 2,88,65,300/- against which the assessee filed an appeal before 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

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)

274 r.w.s 271DA was issued to the assessee on 04.02.2022 requiring his compliance on 10.02.2022. However assessee failed to comply with this notice too. Further, a non responsive reference was raised through Insight Portal on 19.02.20222 and letter was issued to the assessee requiring him to respond within 7 days. However, there is no response from the assessee even after

THE HP STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING & CONSUMERS FEDERATION LIMITED,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA

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

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. On merits we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act amounting to Rs. 13,75,802/- levied by the AO. In this case, the assessment proceedings were completed wherein disallowance