DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

carried out u/s 153A of the Act was not justified and the consequential levy of penalty being illegal is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the cases relating up to AY 2010-11. We order accordingly. 12. Another legal ground taken by the assessee which goes to the root of the case is that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

carried out u/s 153A of the Act was not justified and the consequential levy of penalty being illegal is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the cases relating up to AY 2010-11. We order accordingly. 12. Another legal ground taken by the assessee which goes to the root of the case is that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

carried out u/s 153A of the Act was not justified and the consequential levy of penalty being illegal is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the cases relating up to AY 2010-11. We order accordingly. 12. Another legal ground taken by the assessee which goes to the root of the case is that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

carried out u/s 153A of the Act was not justified and the consequential levy of penalty being illegal is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the cases relating up to AY 2010-11. We order accordingly. 12. Another legal ground taken by the assessee which goes to the root of the case is that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

carried out u/s 153A of the Act was not justified and the consequential levy of penalty being illegal is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the cases relating up to AY 2010-11. We order accordingly. 12. Another legal ground taken by the assessee which goes to the root of the case is that

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 :

carried in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who noted that similar addition had been made in the assessment year 2008-09 in the case of the assessee which had been deleted by the CIT(A) vide order dated 13.5.2011 but the Hon'ble I.T.A.T., on appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2008-09, had upheld the disallowance. Therefore

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

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

carrying a right to participate in the debtors profits, and in particular, income from Government Securities and income from bonds and debentures, including premiums and prizes attaching to such securities, bonds or debentures but, subject to the provisions of paragraph 9 of this Article, shall not include any item which is treated as a distribution under the provisions of Article

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

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

carrying a right to participate in the debtors profits, and in particular, income from Government Securities and income from bonds and debentures, including premiums and prizes attaching to such securities, bonds or debentures but, subject to the provisions of paragraph 9 of this Article, shall not include any item which is treated as a distribution under the provisions of Article

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

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

carrying a right to participate in the debtors profits, and in particular, income from Government Securities and income from bonds and debentures, including premiums and prizes attaching to such securities, bonds or debentures but, subject to the provisions of paragraph 9 of this Article, shall not include any item which is treated as a distribution under the provisions of Article

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

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

carrying a right to participate in the debtors profits, and in particular, income from Government Securities and income from bonds and debentures, including premiums and prizes attaching to such securities, bonds or debentures but, subject to the provisions of paragraph 9 of this Article, shall not include any item which is treated as a distribution under the provisions of Article

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

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

carrying a right to participate in the debtors profits, and in particular, income from Government Securities and income from bonds and debentures, including premiums and prizes attaching to such securities, bonds or debentures but, subject to the provisions of paragraph 9 of this Article, shall not include any item which is treated as a distribution under the provisions of Article

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

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

carrying a right to participate in the debtors profits, and in particular, income from Government Securities and income from bonds and debentures, including premiums and prizes attaching to such securities, bonds or debentures but, subject to the provisions of paragraph 9 of this Article, shall not include any item which is treated as a distribution under the provisions of Article

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:

271(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the “undisclosed income” term/expression has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

271(1)(c) because positive income of assessee was reduced to nil after allowing set-off of carried forward losses of earlier years. 11.K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [[2001l 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC}/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)]where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where assessee was unable to furnish evidence for loans

ROHIT JAIN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. ITO, WARD- 1, MANDI GOBINDGARH, PUNJAB

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

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

carry forward loss out of inadvertent and bonafide mistake. From the perusal of record, I find merit in the aforesaid contention of the assessee. It was not a case of any intentional claim of bogus loss, neither it was any case of intentional concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In my view, the assessee should

ROHIT JAIN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. JAO, ITO WARD - 1, SIRHIND, PUNJAB

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

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

carry forward loss out of inadvertent and bonafide mistake. From the perusal of record, I find merit in the aforesaid contention of the assessee. It was not a case of any intentional claim of bogus loss, neither it was any case of intentional concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In my view, the assessee should

SMT. VANI JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

271(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

SMT. SHWETA JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

271(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed