THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

condone the delay in the present appeal also. 8. As observed earlier, this appeal arises out of a penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271

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

penalty u/s 271AAA for the Asstt. Year 2012-13, all the grounds of appeal are being disposed off by common order:- The appeals of the department bearing ITA No. 343/Chd/2020 and 344/Chd/2020 are late and for which, a request for condonation of delay has been filed by the department contending that due to transfer of jurisdiction of the assessee from

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

penalty u/s 271AAA for the Asstt. Year 2012-13, all the grounds of appeal are being disposed off by common order:- The appeals of the department bearing ITA No. 343/Chd/2020 and 344/Chd/2020 are late and for which, a request for condonation of delay has been filed by the department contending that due to transfer of jurisdiction of the assessee from

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

penalty u/s 271AAA for the Asstt. Year 2012-13, all the grounds of appeal are being disposed off by common order:- The appeals of the department bearing ITA No. 343/Chd/2020 and 344/Chd/2020 are late and for which, a request for condonation of delay has been filed by the department contending that due to transfer of jurisdiction of the assessee from

JARNAIL SINGH GILL,JAGRAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JAGRAON

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

Bench: The Tribunal & The Matter Was Remanded Back To Ao For Fresh Adjudication. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed

delayed filing of the appeal, the same is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was originally completed under section 144 r.w.s 147 at an assessed income of Rs. 47,00,000/- on account of unexplained money. Thereafter, the assessee carried the matter

INDER PAL SINGH LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED SATNAM SINGH 171789, STREET NO.8, GURU TEG BAHADUR JAGRAON,PUNJAB vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JAGRAON , PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

u/s 271 DA to the tune of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- on account of alleged violation of section 269ST. 2. That no proper or reasonable opportunity has been afforded to the appellant to represent the case since no notice was received on the email of assessee or on the email of his counsel or through physical mode. That

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

condone the delay in the present appeal also.\n\n12. There is no income assessable in the hands of the\nassessee. We have already quashed the assessment order.\nConsequently, no penalty is imposable upon the assessee u/s\n271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, we allow this appeal of the\n\nassessee and quash levy of penalty imposed u/s 271

GAJAMFAR ALI,ROHRU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD RAMPUR , WARD RAMPUR

Bench: us.2. The Ld. AR, drawing attention to assessee's background, pleaded for adjudication of appeal on merits. It has been stated that quantum appeal is already pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeals.3. Considering the fact that the quantum appeal would have direct bearing on impugned penalties as levied by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271A, these penalties are to be adjudicated on merits in the light of quantum appeal. Therefore, the appe

penalty of Rs.5,01,260/- u/s 271(1)(c). The impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A) have dismissed the appeals in limine for want of condonation of delay

GAJANFAR ALI,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RAMPUR , WARD RAMPUR

Bench: us.2. The Ld. AR, drawing attention to assessee's background, pleaded for adjudication of appeal on merits. It has been stated that quantum appeal is already pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeals.3. Considering the fact that the quantum appeal would have direct bearing on impugned penalties as levied by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271A, these penalties are to be adjudicated on merits in the light of quantum appeal. Therefore, the appe

penalty of Rs.5,01,260/- u/s 271(1)(c). The impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A) have dismissed the appeals in limine for want of condonation of delay

GAJAMFAR ALI,ROHRU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD RAMPUR, RAMPUR

Bench: us.2. The Ld. AR, drawing attention to assessee's background, pleaded for adjudication of appeal on merits. It has been stated that quantum appeal is already pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeals.3. Considering the fact that the quantum appeal would have direct bearing on impugned penalties as levied by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271A, these penalties are to be adjudicated on merits in the light of quantum appeal. Therefore, the appe

penalty of Rs.5,01,260/- u/s 271(1)(c). The impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A) have dismissed the appeals in limine for want of condonation of delay

BALDEV SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARDS 1, FATEHBAD

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 813/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Baldev Singh, Vs. The Ito, बनाम M/S Baldev Singh Jarnail Ward-1, Singh, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad Dharsul Kalan, Tehsil Tohana, Fatehabad

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeals on merits. 8. The Assessee has taken five grounds of appeal out of which Ground No. 5 is a general which does not call for recording of any specific findings. 9. In Ground No.3, Assessee has pleaded that the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in charging the tax u/s 115BBE

SH. GURPREET SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI

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

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

condonation of delay which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the imposition of penalty of Rs.31,21,238/- u/s 271

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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’ pertaining to 2013-14 assessment year. 2. As requested, first we take the assessee's appeal in ITA 451/CHD/2025. 3. There is a delay in filing the appeal remains of 1350 days. A separate application for condonation

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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’ pertaining to 2013-14 assessment year. 2. As requested, first we take the assessee's appeal in ITA 451/CHD/2025. 3. There is a delay in filing the appeal remains of 1350 days. A separate application for condonation

M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 125/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Valco Industries Ltd., Vs The Dcit, Sco 37, Sector 26, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacv5195J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Monga, Ca Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.44,84,375/- and the CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the A.Y.2004-05 7 penalty by way of the impugned order. Thus, there are various litigations by the assessee in this assessment year. In 2021, Covid was also prevalent and from March, 2020 upto the date of filing of the appeal, the period

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

condone the alleged delay and proceed to decide the Cross Objections on merit in both the assessment years. 7. The Revenue has taken four grounds of appeal in each ITA No.992 & 993/CHD/2024 & CO 46 & 45/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18 & 2016-17 7 assessment year. In brief, its grievance revolves around a single issue and the issues pleaded in rest of the grounds

JAGJIT SINGH ,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, PATIALA , PATIALA

In the result we set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the file of Ld

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058720011(1) Dt. 13/12/2023 Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-12 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2010 To 31/03/2011. 2. Factual Matrix

271(1)(b) Opportunity letter 04 06.2018 11 06.2018 -do- Show cause to penalty u/s 22 06 2018 28 06.2018 -do- 27l(1)(b) Notice u/s 142(1) 19.07.2018 26.07.2018 -do- Notice u/s 142(1) 06.08.2018 13.08.2018 -do- Notice u/s 142(1) 06.09.2018 12.09.2018 -do- Show cause notice 19.09.2018 27.09.2018 -do- Opportunity letter 22 10.2018 26.10.2018 -do- ! 2.5 That

SUKHMINDER SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the Ld

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

271(1)(b) of the Act. 13. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Act. 14. That the learned assessing officer has wrongly initiated penalty proceedings u/s 234A,234B and 234C of the Act. 15. That the assessee prays for any addition, deletion, amendment and modification in the grounds of appeal