AKM RESORTS,MOHALI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that he has no explanation to offer. 2.5 The ld. AO keeping in view that the assessee has not filed any reply was left with no other option but to decide the issue of penalty on merits on the basis of material available on record. ITA 42/CHD/2024

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

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has declared property income as rental income and claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act whereas the AO has assessed the same as income from other sources and deduction so claimed has been disallowed

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has declared property income as rental income and claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act whereas the AO has assessed the same as income from other sources and deduction so claimed has been disallowed

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has declared property income as rental income and claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act whereas the AO has assessed the same as income from other sources and deduction so claimed has been disallowed

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has declared property income as rental income and claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act whereas the AO has assessed the same as income from other sources and deduction so claimed has been disallowed

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has declared property income as rental income and claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act whereas the AO has assessed the same as income from other sources and deduction so claimed has been disallowed

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has declared property income as rental income and claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act whereas the AO has assessed the same as income from other sources and deduction so claimed has been disallowed

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.

disallowance of excess depreciation claimed on assets funded by capital subsidy. Consequent to these additions, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c

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)

disallowance of Rs. 18,33,710/-, which the AO treated as final and uncontroverted. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or supporting documents despite repeated notices, relying only on unsubstantiated judicial citations. Holding that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars and invoking Explanation 1(A) to Section 271(1)(c

JINDAL PADDING PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE MANNPURA, TEHSIL NALAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER PARWANO, PARWANO

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

271(1) (c) of the Act. The observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is as under:- 'Under the scheme of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the total income of the assessee is first computed under the normal provisions of the Act and tax payable on such total income is computed with the prescribed percentage of the book profits

J.K.EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10. 2. All these cases are heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With the consent of both the parties, appeal in ITA No. 126/Asr/2019 for A.Y 2008-09 was taken as a lead case wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That

J.K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE-1,, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10. 2. All these cases are heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With the consent of both the parties, appeal in ITA No. 126/Asr/2019 for A.Y 2008-09 was taken as a lead case wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That

J. K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10. 2. All these cases are heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With the consent of both the parties, appeal in ITA No. 126/Asr/2019 for A.Y 2008-09 was taken as a lead case wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That

SHRI DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

Section 271(1)(c) makes it clear that that when this deeming fiction comes into play in the above two situations then the related addition or disallowance

SH. DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

Section 271(1)(c) makes it clear that that when this deeming fiction comes into play in the above two situations then the related addition or disallowance

M/S HIMACHAL FASHION PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-6(3), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 8/Chd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallow the claim of considered u/s 80IC of the Act but it cannot be considered as filing of inaccurate particulars but the Assessing Officer did not accept this argument and levied penalty u/s Section 271 (1) (c

SH. JAGMOHAN SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

disallowed and an amount of Rs. 38,65,580/- was brought to tax under the head “long term capital gains”. Separately, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c