DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271AAA were dropped by accepting the above explanation regarding the source of income from speculation in property business and after duly considering the order of the ITSC and Rule 9 Report. It has been submitted that, even otherwise, the explanation relating to the source of income has no role to play in ITA Nos.41

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271AAA were dropped by accepting the above explanation regarding the source of income from speculation in property business and after duly considering the order of the ITSC and Rule 9 Report. It has been submitted that, even otherwise, the explanation relating to the source of income has no role to play in ITA Nos.41

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271AAA were dropped by accepting the above explanation regarding the source of income from speculation in property business and after duly considering the order of the ITSC and Rule 9 Report. It has been submitted that, even otherwise, the explanation relating to the source of income has no role to play in ITA Nos.41

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271AAA were dropped by accepting the above explanation regarding the source of income from speculation in property business and after duly considering the order of the ITSC and Rule 9 Report. It has been submitted that, even otherwise, the explanation relating to the source of income has no role to play in ITA Nos.41

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271AAA were dropped by accepting the above explanation regarding the source of income from speculation in property business and after duly considering the order of the ITSC and Rule 9 Report. It has been submitted that, even otherwise, the explanation relating to the source of income has no role to play in ITA Nos.41

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271AAA were dropped by accepting the above explanation regarding the source of income from speculation in property business and after duly considering the order of the ITSC and Rule 9 Report. It has been submitted that, even otherwise, the explanation relating to the source of income has no role to play in ITA Nos.41

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271AAA were dropped by accepting the above explanation regarding the source of income from speculation in property business and after duly considering the order of the ITSC and Rule 9 Report. It has been submitted that, even otherwise, the explanation relating to the source of income has no role to play in ITA Nos.41

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 IT act on disallowance of Rs 5,55,241/- being disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D on the dividend income of Rs 10,50,047/-. it may kindly be observed that the appellant submitted all particulars showing the manner in which claim of various expenses was admissible. Thereafter, the question as to whether

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 IT act on disallowance of Rs 5,55,241/- being disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D on the dividend income of Rs 10,50,047/-. it may kindly be observed that the appellant submitted all particulars showing the manner in which claim of various expenses was admissible. Thereafter, the question as to whether

SH. ASHOK JINDAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 AAA of the Act is leviable on this amount. 3. That the Worthy CIT (A) while confirming the penalty u/s 271AAAwithregard to cash found during the search, has erred in assessing the income of assessee as deemed income u/s 69A and not business

SH. AMIT JINDAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 AAA of the Act is leviable on this amount. 3. That the Worthy CIT (A) while confirming the penalty u/s 271AAAwithregard to cash found during the search, has erred in assessing the income of assessee as deemed income u/s 69A and not business

SH. ROSHAN LAL JINDAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is,

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1555/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

271 AAA of the Act is leviable on this amount. 3. That the Worthy CIT (A) while confirming the penalty u/s 271AAA with regard to cash found during the search and jewellery, has erred in assessing the income of assessee as deemed income u/s 69A and not business

M/S SEL TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, theappeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.695/Chd/2018 धििागरणवर्ग / Assessment Year :2014-15 बिाम M/S Sel Textiles Limited, The Dcit, 273-74,G.T. Road, Central Circle-Iii, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana Ludhiana स्थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aancs0401M अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent धििागररतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राजस्वकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh. Ram Mohan, Cit Dr सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2019 उदघोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2019 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg:

business of manufacturing of yarns and towels and also trading in knitted cloth and towels. Consequent to search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 11-09-2013 on SEL Group, the assessee filed return on 28-11-2014 declaring loss at Rs. 41,93,29,760/- which included a sum of Rs. 14.00 Crores as additional income

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

business income for the A.Y. 2016-17. ITA 398/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 3 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana vide order dated 23.01.2019, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. On total addition of Rs.88,86,872/- representing undisclosed investment in stock

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 :

income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee and hence no penalty is leviable U/s 271(l)(c) 5. That the invocation of Explanation 1 against the assessee is illegal and bad in law.” 3. During the course of hearing before us Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that the penalty in the present case had been levied on disallowance

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

income from business" which has been accepted by the Deptt., penalty U/s. 271 AAA is not leviable.” 12. The Ld. counsel

M/S Y.D.SOLUTIONS,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD-4(5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)of the Act on the ground that the assessee had wrongly shown the rental income as ‘business income’ whereas it was to be offered for taxation as ‘income from house property’. He, therefore, held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and levied the impugned penalty

ACIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD., KHARAR

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

business income and which is accepted and assessed by the AO. 4. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in confirming penalty levied under section 271 AAA on an amount of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-whereas the same is chargeable @ 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/-, the surrendered income, which

M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD.,KHARAR vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

business income and which is accepted and assessed by the AO. 4. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in confirming penalty levied under section 271 AAA on an amount of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-whereas the same is chargeable @ 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/-, the surrendered income, which