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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

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 (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- (1) Where the total income of an assessee includes any income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

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 (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- (1) Where the total income of an assessee includes any income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

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 (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- (1) Where the total income of an assessee includes any income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

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 (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- (1) Where the total income of an assessee includes any income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

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 (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- (1) Where the total income of an assessee includes any income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

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 (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- (1) Where the total income of an assessee includes any income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

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 (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- (1) Where the total income of an assessee includes any income

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

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

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

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

CHITVAN AGGARWAL,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-5(1), LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainiassessment Year: 2015-16 Chitvan Aggarwal Vs. The Ito Prop. M/S Bhushan Impex, W-5(1), Ludhiana 17, Beri Mark, Punjab Vishwakarma Chowk, Gill Road, Ludhiana, Punjab

274 r.w.s. 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 05/06/2018 was served upon the assessee, whereas no such notice was ever served upon the assessee. That the Learned Assessing Officer has not provide any opportunity to the appellant and imposed the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s 27 I B of the Income

BHUPINDER SINGH vs. ITO, MOHALI

delay which is due to the medical reason is hereby condoned. In the case of Mrs. Tej Kaur in ITA No. 507/CHD/2017 the legal heir was brought on record. 3. Assessee has raised amended grounds in all the above appeals, since the issues raised in all the appeals are common therefore they are being disposed off by way of this

TEJ KAUR,MOHALI vs. ITO, MOHALI

delay which is due to the medical reason is hereby condoned. In the case of Mrs. Tej Kaur in ITA No. 507/CHD/2017 the legal heir was brought on record. 3. Assessee has raised amended grounds in all the above appeals, since the issues raised in all the appeals are common therefore they are being disposed off by way of this

JASWINDER SINGH,KHARAR vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

delay which is due to the medical reason is hereby condoned. In the case of Mrs. Tej Kaur in ITA No. 507/CHD/2017 the legal heir was brought on record. 3. Assessee has raised amended grounds in all the above appeals, since the issues raised in all the appeals are common therefore they are being disposed off by way of this

GURINDER SINGH vs. ITO, MOHALI

delay which is due to the medical reason is hereby condoned. In the case of Mrs. Tej Kaur in ITA No. 507/CHD/2017 the legal heir was brought on record. 3. Assessee has raised amended grounds in all the above appeals, since the issues raised in all the appeals are common therefore they are being disposed off by way of this