DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, FOCAL POINT

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowable =Rs.85,00,000+ Rs.11,22,04,500 Rs.12,07,04,500/- Therefore, an amount of Rs.12,07,04,500/- is being added to the income of the assessee. Hence, I am satisfied that the assessee company has under reported income is in consequence of any misreported thereof for which the penalty provisions of section 270A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, - vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowable =Rs.85,00,000+ Rs.11,22,04,500 Rs.12,07,04,500/- Therefore, an amount of Rs.12,07,04,500/- is being added to the income of the assessee. Hence, I am satisfied that the assessee company has under reported income is in consequence of any misreported thereof for which the penalty provisions of section 270A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowable =Rs.85,00,000+ Rs.11,22,04,500 Rs.12,07,04,500/- Therefore, an amount of Rs.12,07,04,500/- is being added to the income of the assessee. Hence, I am satisfied that the assessee company has under reported income is in consequence of any misreported thereof for which the penalty provisions of section 270A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowable =Rs.85,00,000+ Rs.11,22,04,500 Rs.12,07,04,500/- Therefore, an amount of Rs.12,07,04,500/- is being added to the income of the assessee. Hence, I am satisfied that the assessee company has under reported income is in consequence of any misreported thereof for which the penalty provisions of section 270A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, , AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowable =Rs.85,00,000+ Rs.11,22,04,500 Rs.12,07,04,500/- Therefore, an amount of Rs.12,07,04,500/- is being added to the income of the assessee. Hence, I am satisfied that the assessee company has under reported income is in consequence of any misreported thereof for which the penalty provisions of section 270A

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowable =Rs.85,00,000+ Rs.11,22,04,500 Rs.12,07,04,500/- Therefore, an amount of Rs.12,07,04,500/- is being added to the income of the assessee. Hence, I am satisfied that the assessee company has under reported income is in consequence of any misreported thereof for which the penalty provisions of section 270A

DCIT CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowable =Rs.85,00,000+ Rs.11,22,04,500 Rs.12,07,04,500/- Therefore, an amount of Rs.12,07,04,500/- is being added to the income of the assessee. Hence, I am satisfied that the assessee company has under reported income is in consequence of any misreported thereof for which the penalty provisions of section 270A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowable =Rs.85,00,000+ Rs.11,22,04,500 Rs.12,07,04,500/- Therefore, an amount of Rs.12,07,04,500/- is being added to the income of the assessee. Hence, I am satisfied that the assessee company has under reported income is in consequence of any misreported thereof for which the penalty provisions of section 270A

M/S SHREE GANESH JEWELLERS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE V(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

disallowed out of aforesaid expenses and added to the income of the assessee.” 2.1 Further our reference was drawn to the findings of the AO in the order passed under section 270A of the Act wherein the relevant findings are stated at para 4 to 6 of the order and the contents thereof read as under: “4. As per section

BANUR BROTHER ,PATIALA vs. ITO-WARD-1, AMBALA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

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

270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for misreporting the income, and U/s 272A(1)(d) of the IT. Act for non compliance of notice sent to the assessee online electronically in E-proceedings facility through assessee's account in e- filing website of Income Tax Department.” 6. A bare and simple perusal of Ld. AO order clearly shows that

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. WARYAM STEEL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, KANGANWAL ROAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

270A, 271B, and 272A(1)(d) were initiated for under-reporting income, failure to file an audit report, and non-compliance with statutory notices, respectively. Interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was also charged. 4. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned

WARYAM STEEL CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

270A, 271B, and 272A(1)(d) were initiated for under-reporting income, failure to file an audit report, and non-compliance with statutory notices, respectively. Interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was also charged. 4. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned

GEETA SHARMA,SUNAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PATIALA

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

270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are initiated for under reporting of income.” 10. Consequently vide para 9 of aforesaid order, total income of the assessee was computed as below: “9. Subject to the foregoing discussion, the total income of the assessee shall be computed as under: Total Income as per ITR Rs. 14,65,910/- Add: Income from

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)

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, considering judicial pronouncements as well as in law, the authorities have erred and not justified in initiation of penalty proceedings and imposing penalty of Rs. 13,75,802/- under section 270A specifically: 1.1 that the quantum assessment order passed by applying the provisions of Section 14A r.w. Rule

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD6(3), LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A,O, ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowances that contradict the purpose of the Income Tax Act." vi). Shree Jain SwetamberMurtipujakTapagachha Sangh v. CIT (Exemption): "Substantial justice must take precedence over technical compliance issues, particularly for charitable trusts." 5.6 Further, our reference was drawn to the written submission filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which are contained at pages 43 to 45 of the assessee’s paper

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowances that contradict the purpose of the Income Tax Act." vi). Shree Jain SwetamberMurtipujakTapagachha Sangh v. CIT (Exemption): "Substantial justice must take precedence over technical compliance issues, particularly for charitable trusts." 5.6 Further, our reference was drawn to the written submission filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which are contained at pages 43 to 45 of the assessee’s paper

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA,ITO WARD 6(3), LUDHIANA,CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowances that contradict the purpose of the Income Tax Act." vi). Shree Jain SwetamberMurtipujakTapagachha Sangh v. CIT (Exemption): "Substantial justice must take precedence over technical compliance issues, particularly for charitable trusts." 5.6 Further, our reference was drawn to the written submission filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which are contained at pages 43 to 45 of the assessee’s paper

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowances that contradict the purpose of the Income Tax Act." vi). Shree Jain SwetamberMurtipujakTapagachha Sangh v. CIT (Exemption): "Substantial justice must take precedence over technical compliance issues, particularly for charitable trusts." 5.6 Further, our reference was drawn to the written submission filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which are contained at pages 43 to 45 of the assessee’s paper

FUJIYAMA POWER SYSTEMS,PARWANOO vs. ITO PARWANOO, PARWANOO

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, and the penalty of Rs

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

Disallowance of interest of Rs. 15,300/-; (iii) Addition of Rs. 35,62,089/- on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to PF under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va); (iv) Addition of Rs. 4,79,88,545/- on account of mismatch of income as per Form 26AS and ITR. 2.1 On the basis