DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act observing as under:- “4.1 I have considered the appellant submissions. Penalty u/s 271

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act observing as under:- “4.1 I have considered the appellant submissions. Penalty u/s 271

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act observing as under:- “4.1 I have considered the appellant submissions. Penalty u/s 271

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act observing as under:- “4.1 I have considered the appellant submissions. Penalty u/s 271

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act observing as under:- “4.1 I have considered the appellant submissions. Penalty u/s 271

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act held that the penalty has been levied u/s 271(1)(c) after

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act held that the penalty has been levied u/s 271(1)(c) after

SH. CHETAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptash.Chetan Jain, Vs. The D.C.I.T., B-121, Pushap Vihar, Central Circle-Iii, Canal Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aaypj0618H (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings on the same u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. During penalty proceedings the assessee contended that the surrender

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

penalty proceedings on the same u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During the course of penalty proceedings the assessee

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

penalty proceedings on the same u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During the course of penalty proceedings the assessee

M/S HAPPY STEEL PRIVATE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahay

271 AAB (1 A) of the Act, penalty is leviable on the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the notice initiating penalty u/s

SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Us Challenging The Levy Of Penalty Both On Legal Ground As Well As On Merits Of The Case :

penalty order passed u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act by the AO 2 A.Y.2010-11 levying a penalty of Rs.1

M/S APEEJAY EDUCATION SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(b), the assessee vide A show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 letter dated (1)(b) was issued

SH. PAWAN SAHNI,SOLAN vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 AAA (2) and, thus, impugned penalty order deserved to be set aside - Held, yes [Para 10] [In favour of assessee] NEERAT SINGAL VS. ACIT 161 TTJ (DEL.) (TRIE.) 483 Penalty u/s

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

penalty proceedings by following the order of ITA Nos.1310 & 1311/Chd/2019 A.Ys .2010-11 & 2011-12 Page 3 of 7 the ITAT rendered in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year2007-08. 2. The Ld. Pr.CIT, Chandigarh, by exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, revised the order passed by the AO u/s 271

M/S HAPPY STEEL PRIVATE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 397/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S Happy Steels Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम B-Xxix, 2254, Central Circle-2, Kanganwal Road, Ludhiana P.O. Jugiana, Ludhiana 141120 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaach6019D अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

271(1)(c) at Rs. 3,80,242/- 2. That levy of penalty and upholding the same is bad in law in as much as no specific charge has been made out while issuing the penalty notice and while levying penalty u/s

SH. SATPAL GOSAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the Act. 3. During the course of the penalty proceedings, the AO asked the assessee

ANJALI SAINI,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO-WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b). 10. That it is contended the notice for initiation of penalty dated 271(1)(b) dated