DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation 4(c) read with Explanation I to section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation 4(c) read with Explanation I to section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation 4(c) read with Explanation I to section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation 4(c) read with Explanation I to section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation 4(c) read with Explanation I to section

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

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

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) ignoring the facts that the assessee should itself disallowed the proportionate interest after applying section 14A of the Income

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) ignoring the facts that the assessee should itself disallowed the proportionate interest after applying section 14A of the Income

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". Proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated against the addition

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)

disallowance of provision made towards standard assets amounting to Rs. 2,21,28,000/- and separately, the penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c

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

disallowance of provision\nmade towards standard assets amounting to Rs.2,21,28,000/- and separately,\nthe penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c

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, 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

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