HEALTH BIOTECH LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the disposal of the same.

depreciation claimed on assets funded by capital subsidy. Consequent to these additions, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271

ASPEE SONS,SOLAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO, PARWANOO

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

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

depreciation. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. While the assessee contested

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HIMALAYAN EXPRESSWAY LTD., PINJORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

section 271(1)(c) for wrong adjustment of Unabsorbed Depreciation. 3. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT W taxmann.com 448 (SC)/r20131

M/S COLOUR COTTEX PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-5(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

depreciation and ROC fee. And also in the case of Bhatia Corporation Pvt. Ltd. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of SAMTEL India Ltd. 96 Taxman 162 held that merely because assessee has claimed expenditure which claim was not accepted that by itself would not attract penalty under section 271

ACIT,CIRCLE PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. M/S V.K.SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTOR, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 79/Chd/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 बनाम The Acit, M/S V.K. Sood Engineers & Circle, Panchkula Contractor Ddsjv, Unit-Iii, H.No. 20, Sector-6 Panchkula-134109, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aagfv0584J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation claimed, however, restricted the addition of 20% made on account of expenses of personal nature to 10%. In the meantime the A.O. initiated the proceedings under section 271

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

Section 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3.4 Regarding Motor Car Expenses the Ld. AO observed that the assessee had claimed expenses related to motor vehicles. These included depreciation

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR BATRA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-3(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 120 & 121/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Shri Vijay Kumar Batra, The Acit, बनाम Circle 3(1), Prop M/S Adley Foundations, Chandigarh Sco 184, Sector 5,Panchkula Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aejpb0879B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

271(l)(c) imposed based on addition made (by allowing 25% deduction instead of 100% deduction u/s 80-IC) by holding appellant having claimed 100% deduction without establishing substantial expansion, that too, without considering assessment order dated 31.12.2016 for AY 2011-12 itself and Hon'ble ITAT's order vide ITA No. 586/Chd/2017 dated 15.02.2018 allowing 100% deduction under section

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR BATRA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-3(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 120 & 121/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Shri Vijay Kumar Batra, The Acit, बनाम Circle 3(1), Prop M/S Adley Foundations, Chandigarh Sco 184, Sector 5,Panchkula Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aejpb0879B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

271(l)(c) imposed based on addition made (by allowing 25% deduction instead of 100% deduction u/s 80-IC) by holding appellant having claimed 100% deduction without establishing substantial expansion, that too, without considering assessment order dated 31.12.2016 for AY 2011-12 itself and Hon'ble ITAT's order vide ITA No. 586/Chd/2017 dated 15.02.2018 allowing 100% deduction under section

S.D.S. ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

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

section 271(1)(c) on disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.556656/-.” 3. At the outset, itself, it was pointed out that

M/S MRS. BECTOR FOOD SPECIALITIES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07

271(1)(c) were for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income and as such the confirmation of penalty was against the law and facts of the case. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment in the case of Assessee Company is completed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

depreciation current year income year 2012-13 25199906 7429889 17770017 2013-14 7027382 0 7027382 Total 32227288 7429889 24797399 Losses to be carried forward Rs. 2,47,97,399/-. Assessed. Issue requisite documents. Charge Interest u/s 234A/B/C, if any. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

AL RASHEED CHARITABLE SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. JCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to\nRs.3,34,759/-.\n\nPenalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act also came to be\ninitiated by the AO in respect of additions/disallowances made of\nRs.7,01,67,544/- by the AO by issue of a notice u/s.271(1)(c) read with\nsection 274 of the Act, dated: 20.12.2018. The assessee

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particular leading to concealment of the income. The appellant has submitted that, "In this regard it is respectfully submitted that the depreciation of Rs. 63,92,824/- (Rs. 66,06,128 - Rs. 2,13,304) as claimed by the Assessee Company were relating to depreciation of rented building, furniture

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particular leading to concealment of the income. The appellant has submitted that, "In this regard it is respectfully submitted that the depreciation of Rs. 63,92,824/- (Rs. 66,06,128 - Rs. 2,13,304) as claimed by the Assessee Company were relating to depreciation of rented building, furniture

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particular leading to concealment of the income. The appellant has submitted that, "In this regard it is respectfully submitted that the depreciation of Rs. 63,92,824/- (Rs. 66,06,128 - Rs. 2,13,304) as claimed by the Assessee Company were relating to depreciation of rented building, furniture

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particular leading to concealment of the income. The appellant has submitted that, "In this regard it is respectfully submitted that the depreciation of Rs. 63,92,824/- (Rs. 66,06,128 - Rs. 2,13,304) as claimed by the Assessee Company were relating to depreciation of rented building, furniture

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particular leading to concealment of the income. The appellant has submitted that, "In this regard it is respectfully submitted that the depreciation of Rs. 63,92,824/- (Rs. 66,06,128 - Rs. 2,13,304) as claimed by the Assessee Company were relating to depreciation of rented building, furniture

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particular leading to concealment of the income. The appellant has submitted that, "In this regard it is respectfully submitted that the depreciation of Rs. 63,92,824/- (Rs. 66,06,128 - Rs. 2,13,304) as claimed by the Assessee Company were relating to depreciation of rented building, furniture