DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted in this case. In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any merit in the appeals of the revenue, the same are accordingly dismissed. Now coming to the cross objection filed by the assesses. ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted in this case. In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any merit in the appeals of the revenue, the same are accordingly dismissed. Now coming to the cross objection filed by the assesses. ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted in this case. In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any merit in the appeals of the revenue, the same are accordingly dismissed. Now coming to the cross objection filed by the assesses. ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted in this case. In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any merit in the appeals of the revenue, the same are accordingly dismissed. Now coming to the cross objection filed by the assesses. ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted in this case. In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any merit in the appeals of the revenue, the same are accordingly dismissed. Now coming to the cross objection filed by the assesses. ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,KANGRA, 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

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

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY ,KANGRA, 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

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

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

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 , 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

M/S SHAHEED KARTAR SINGH SARABHA CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD.),LUDHIANA vs. CIT(A)-4, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty order, thereafter, immediately the counsel of the assessee got the appeal prepared and filed it. He requested to condone the delay. 4. In his rival submissions the Ld. CIT DR opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that ignorance of law cannot be an excuse for condoning the delay and that the assessee was a willful offender since