DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

1)(c)(i) & (ii) read with section 13(2)(c) &\n13(3)(c) of the Act. \"\nHon'ble Mumbai Bench in the case of The Cancer Aid Research Foundation\nByculla Municipal School Building vs Director of Income Tax (Exemp) in ITA No.\n1782/Mum/2014 vide order dated 16.07.2014 wherein it has been held as under:\n\"There

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

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(1)(c

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(1)(c

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

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

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

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(1)(c

M/S CORE METAL KRAFTS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-5(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

271(1)(c) states that where in respect of any facts material to the computation of income the assessee does not offer an explanation or offers a false explanation or offers an explanation which is unable to substantiate and prove that it is bonafide, then the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income as a result thereof shall

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

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

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

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

1. The order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh (Ld. CIT Appeals) upholding demand of penalty under section 271(l)(c) being unlawful, perverse and against facts and law needs to be set aside, annulled and vacated; 2. Ld. CIT Appeals order upholding demand of penalty under section 271(l)(c), by considering appellant's bonafide claim

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

1. The order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh (Ld. CIT Appeals) upholding demand of penalty under section 271(l)(c) being unlawful, perverse and against facts and law needs to be set aside, annulled and vacated; 2. Ld. CIT Appeals order upholding demand of penalty under section 271(l)(c), by considering appellant's bonafide claim

M/S IOL CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-I, LUDHIANA

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act which was worked out @13% on Rs. 2,06,24,284/- 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: GROUND No. 1 Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) Regarding the disallowance of interest u/s 36(l)iii), it is submitted that the debit

SH. AMAN SETH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

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

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

271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Being aggrieved by the AO order dt. 10/02/2015 (supra) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who by an order dt. 05/06/2017 has sustained the additions. 7. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A) dt. 05/06/2017 has preferred an appeal before

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

depreciation amounting to Rs.2,56,919 were debited to the profit and loss account. As no log books or call registers were maintained, and considering 3 the likelihood of personal use, 1/5th of these expenses (Rs.51,384) was disallowed. 4.5 Finally, the AO noticed that an advance of Rs.1,00,000 was made to Mr. Pankaj Garg, C.A., which

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

1. during survey u./s 133A on 7th & 8th of December, 2009, which was annexurised as A-5. This day book for A.Y. 2007-08 was computerized and ledger and cash books were prepared, copy of which was handed to the assessee for its comments. But it failed to substantiate the same. Explanation furnished by the assessee is not accepted