DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)(c) fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot be levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. 4.7 Para 8 of the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble Apex is reproduced as under:- “Section 45 charges the profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)(c) fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot be levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. 4.7 Para 8 of the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble Apex is reproduced as under:- “Section 45 charges the profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

u/s 271(l)(c) fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot be levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. 4.7 Para 8 of the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble Apex is reproduced as under:- “Section 45 charges the profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)(c) fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot be levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. 4.7 Para 8 of the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble Apex is reproduced as under:- “Section 45 charges the profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)(c) fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot be levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. 4.7 Para 8 of the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble Apex is reproduced as under:- “Section 45 charges the profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)(c) fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot be levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. 4.7 Para 8 of the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble Apex is reproduced as under:- “Section 45 charges the profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital

SH. PARMINDER SINGH MAVI,MORINDA vs. ITO, ROPAR

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

Capital Gain earned by the assessee at Rs.1,79,13,228/- and added the same to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

capital gain on Rs.30 lacs received in this year to avoid any penal action. vi) Since the said issue was not confronted by AO till the revised return was filed, it was a voluntary return, so as not to invite penalty u/s. 271

ITO, LUDHIANA vs. SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

capital gain on Rs.30 lacs received in this year to avoid any penal action. vi) Since the said issue was not confronted by AO till the revised return was filed, it was a voluntary return, so as not to invite penalty u/s. 271

SOHAN SINGH GARCHA,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptac.O. No. 39/Chd/2012 (In Ita No. 973/Chd/2012) "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 Shri Sohan Lal Garcha, Vs. The Dcit, 901/2, Punjab Mata Natar, Circle Vi, बनाम Ludhiana Ludhiana

capital gains has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, hence, there is no subsisting addition at this stage. Hence, the very basis on which penalty was levied has ceased to exist, therefore, the impugned penalty levied u/s 271

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)

penalty of Rs. 13,13,910/- u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declared total income of Rs. 6,24,782/- on 31/03/2010. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. During

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR JAIN,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 190/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, The Ito, Ward 2(3), बनाम Chandigarh Flat No.222, Orbit Apartments, 6Th Floor, Zirakpur "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Advpj6719P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that the assessee came to know about the passing of the appellate order. Thereafter, the assessee applied for certifiedof the order of the CIT(A) which was provided to him on 20.2.2019 and the appeal was filed immediately within the period of limitation. The above averments made

PAWAN GARG,PANCHKULA vs. ITO WARD 5((5) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1218/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pawan Garg, The Ito, House No. 766, Sector 16, Vs Ward 5(5), Panchkula. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abmpg4243N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing the income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income have been initiated separately. Issue notice of demand.” 4. The appeal to the CIT (Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee while impugning the orders of Revenue Authorities submitted that on 06.04.2009, assessee

SMT. JYOTI JAIN,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessees are allowed for

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1074/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Lalit Jain The Assistant Commissioner बनाम S.C.O. 371-372, 2Nd Floor, Of Income Tax Circle-4(1), Sector-35B, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No : Aaupj 0091Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated. That against the assessment order so framed, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and during pendency of the appeal raised additional grounds challenging the assessment of the surrendered income on account of alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gain

SH. LALIT JAIN,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessees are allowed for

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1074/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Lalit Jain The Assistant Commissioner बनाम S.C.O. 371-372, 2Nd Floor, Of Income Tax Circle-4(1), Sector-35B, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No : Aaupj 0091Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated. That against the assessment order so framed, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and during pendency of the appeal raised additional grounds challenging the assessment of the surrendered income on account of alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gain

SH. PARAM PAUL SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (INTL. TAXATION), CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara, Judicialmember Assessment Year:2009-10

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) will also be initiated for concealing and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Sale consideration Rs.70,27,3360/- Purchase cost/indexed cost (25.01.1995) Rs. 6,95,198/- Rs.3,09,375 x 582 63,32,162/- 259 Exemption u/s 54 Rs.12,96,000 allowable Long Term Capital Gain

MAHIPINDER SINGH SANDHU,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. First we take up the issue on merits as raised vide Grounds No.3 & 4. The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) at the returned income of Rs. 5,27,15,240/-. The Assessing officer discovered that the assessee

PARAS AND SHUBHAM CHAUDHARY LEGAL HEIR OF KANHAIYA LAL,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

capital gain will be taxable upon the assessee. However, the compensation has been received by the assessee after incorporation of Section 10(37) of the Act, hence, assessee is entitled for the benefit of this Section and the alleged interest received by him u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which are treated at par with the enhanced compensation