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

271(1)(c) were also initiated w.r.t. all the above referred restriction in deduction claimed and disallowances made. The issues on which penalty levied is as under:- Amount of addition on which penalty Issues where penalty proceedings proceedings initiated initiated 8m A.Y. claim of deduction u/s

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act reveals that there are two parts of this section. The first part speaks about the charge which may invite penalty i.e. a person has concealed ‘particulars’ of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, he may be directed to pay certain sum by way of penalty as penalty. Now, the second part speaks

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act reveals that there are two parts of this section. The first part speaks about the charge which may invite penalty i.e. a person has concealed ‘particulars’ of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, he may be directed to pay certain sum by way of penalty as penalty. Now, the second part speaks

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act reveals that there are two parts of this section. The first part speaks about the charge which may invite penalty i.e. a person has concealed ‘particulars’ of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, he may be directed to pay certain sum by way of penalty as penalty. Now, the second part speaks

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act reveals that there are two parts of this section. The first part speaks about the charge which may invite penalty i.e. a person has concealed ‘particulars’ of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, he may be directed to pay certain sum by way of penalty as penalty. Now, the second part speaks

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act reveals that there are two parts of this section. The first part speaks about the charge which may invite penalty i.e. a person has concealed ‘particulars’ of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, he may be directed to pay certain sum by way of penalty as penalty. Now, the second part speaks

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

271(1)(c) of the Act reveals that there are two parts of this section. The first part speaks about the charge which may invite penalty i.e. a person has concealed ‘particulars’ of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, he may be directed to pay certain sum by way of penalty as penalty. Now, the second part speaks

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act reveals that there are two parts of this section. The first part speaks about the charge which may invite penalty i.e. a person has concealed ‘particulars’ of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, he may be directed to pay certain sum by way of penalty as penalty. Now, the second part speaks

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 :

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 of freight payments amounting to Rs.3,38,43,488/- for non deduction

M/S H.M. STEEL LTD.,SANGRUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

penalty of Rs. 71,63,840/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of addition of Rs. 2,10,76,322/- made on account of disallowance of deduction

DCIT, SANGRUR vs. M/S H.M. STEEL LTD., SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

penalty of Rs. 71,63,840/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of addition of Rs. 2,10,76,322/- made on account of disallowance of deduction

ACIT, SANGRUR vs. M/S H.M.STEELS LTD, DIRBA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

penalty of Rs. 71,63,840/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of addition of Rs. 2,10,76,322/- made on account of disallowance of deduction

H.M. STEELS LTD.,SANGRUR vs. ACIT, SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

penalty of Rs. 71,63,840/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of addition of Rs. 2,10,76,322/- made on account of disallowance of deduction

H.M. STEELS LTD.,SANGRUR vs. ACIT, SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

penalty of Rs. 71,63,840/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of addition of Rs. 2,10,76,322/- made on account of disallowance of deduction

DCIT, SANGRUR vs. M/S H.M. STEEL LTD., SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

penalty of Rs. 71,63,840/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of addition of Rs. 2,10,76,322/- made on account of disallowance of deduction

DCIT, SANGRUR vs. M/S H.M. STEEL LTD., SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

penalty of Rs. 71,63,840/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of addition of Rs. 2,10,76,322/- made on account of disallowance of deduction

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

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

271(1)(C) are applicable and invoked in the instant case, the tax finally assessed would be equal to tax deducted at source and there is no quantum of tax which is sought to be evaded by the assessee and therefore, in light of same, there is no basis for levy of penalty u/s

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

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

271(1)(C) are applicable and invoked in the instant case, the tax finally assessed would be equal to tax deducted at source and there is no quantum of tax which is sought to be evaded by the assessee and therefore, in light of same, there is no basis for levy of penalty u/s

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

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

271(1)(C) are applicable and invoked in the instant case, the tax finally assessed would be equal to tax deducted at source and there is no quantum of tax which is sought to be evaded by the assessee and therefore, in light of same, there is no basis for levy of penalty u/s