DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not fulfilled and, therefore, Assessing officer has rightly imposed / levied penalty. That as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not fulfilled and, therefore, Assessing officer has rightly imposed / levied penalty. That as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not fulfilled and, therefore, Assessing officer has rightly imposed / levied penalty. That as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not fulfilled and, therefore, Assessing officer has rightly imposed / levied penalty. That as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not fulfilled and, therefore, Assessing officer has rightly imposed / levied penalty. That as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow

SH. MUNISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

disallowed while computing total income of the year, therefore no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee stating that the surrender is not covered u./s 132(4) of the Act as per the provisions of section 271AAA(4)(b

SH. MUNISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

disallowed while computing total income of the year, therefore no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee stating that the surrender is not covered u./s 132(4) of the Act as per the provisions of section 271AAA(4)(b

HYCRON ELECTRONICS vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of authorities below and cancel the penalty. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 10. The issue of levy of penalty on this issue under appeal is squarely covered by the order of the ITAT referred supra. Following the same, the levy

DCIT, PARWANOO vs. M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS, SOLAN

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of authorities below and cancel the penalty. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 10. The issue of levy of penalty on this issue under appeal is squarely covered by the order of the ITAT referred supra. Following the same, the levy

THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी राजपाल यादव, , उपा"य" एवं "ी "व"म "संह यादव, , लेखा सद"य , , , , BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 804 & 805/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Kangra Central The DCIT बनाम Cooperative Bank Ltd. Circle, Palampur Civil Lines, Dharamshala District Kangra

SH RAMESH KUMAR DUDANI,MOHALI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE -6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

disallowance of Foreign Travelling Expenses. Out of the aforesaid additions, the addition of Rs. 3,15,213/- was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dt. 24/10/2016 in Appeal No. 149/2014- 15 and the A.O. herself dropped the penalty on the addition of Rs. 1,40,955/-, the only addition which remained intact for the purposes of levying penalty

THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

B”, CHANDIGARH\nHEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE\nश्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री विक्रम सिंह यादव, लेखा सदस्य\nBEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 804 & 805/Chd/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14\n\nThe Kangra Central\nCooperative Bank Ltd.\nCivil Lines, Dharamshala\nDistrict Kangra\nबनाम\The DCIT\nCircle, Palampur\nस्थायी

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person (b) has failed to comply with a notice [under sub-section (2) of section 115WD or under sub-section (2) of section 115 WE or] under sub-section (1

SMT. SUREKHA THUKRAL ,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Section 271 271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person. a…. b…. c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, or … … Expalanation1. Where in respect of any facts material

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

disallowance of deduction or the treatment of income leading to penalty is absolutely irrelevant in the present case. It is further seen that though the AO has not referred to Explanation 3 to sec.271(l)(c), the aforesaid explanation is clearly applicable to the appellant. The explanation lays out a deemed concealment for cases where returns have not been filed

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

disallowance of deduction or the treatment of income leading to penalty is absolutely irrelevant in the present case. It is further seen that though the AO has not referred to Explanation 3 to sec.271(l)(c), the aforesaid explanation is clearly applicable to the appellant. The explanation lays out a deemed concealment for cases where returns have not been filed

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

disallowance of deduction or the treatment of income leading to penalty is absolutely irrelevant in the present case. It is further seen that though the AO has not referred to Explanation 3 to sec.271(l)(c), the aforesaid explanation is clearly applicable to the appellant. The explanation lays out a deemed concealment for cases where returns have not been filed

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

disallowance of deduction or the treatment of income leading to penalty is absolutely irrelevant in the present case. It is further seen that though the AO has not referred to Explanation 3 to sec.271(l)(c), the aforesaid explanation is clearly applicable to the appellant. The explanation lays out a deemed concealment for cases where returns have not been filed