M/S HIMACHAL FASHION PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-6(3), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 8/Chd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

deduction u/s 80IC of the Act has been denied not because of filing of any inaccurate particulars but 8-Chd-2020 M/s Himachal Fashion Pvt Ltd, Ludhiana 8 because of filing of a belated return of income. Therefore, a case of filing of belated return of income may not be considered as a reason for imposing penalty u/s Section 271

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

penalty of Rs.9,17,81,215/- u/s 271(1)(c) is held to be not correct and consequently Department is in appeal before us. Basis our above order, we reject the appeal of the Department and sustain the order of ld. CIT(A) supra. 31.1 In the result, the above appeal of the Department is rejected. 32. Now we shall

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

penalty of Rs.9,17,81,215/- u/s 271(1)(c) is held to be not correct and consequently Department is in appeal before us. Basis our above order, we reject the appeal of the Department and sustain the order of ld. CIT(A) supra. 31.1 In the result, the above appeal of the Department is rejected. 32. Now we shall

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

penalty of Rs.9,17,81,215/- u/s 271(1)(c) is held to be not correct and consequently Department is in appeal before us. Basis our above order, we reject the appeal of the Department and sustain the order of ld. CIT(A) supra. 31.1 In the result, the above appeal of the Department is rejected. 32. Now we shall

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

penalty of Rs.9,17,81,215/- u/s 271(1)(c) is held to be not correct and consequently Department is in appeal before us. Basis our above order, we reject the appeal of the Department and sustain the order of ld. CIT(A) supra. 31.1 In the result, the above appeal of the Department is rejected. 32. Now we shall

THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAMPUR

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

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in levying a penalty of Rs. 66,38,400/- without specifying the limb of Section 271

DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH vs. VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., , CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Punjab & Haryana High Court? Ii) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Is Right Holding Such Consequential Order As Void An Initio Ignoring The Facts That Order Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Gurugram U/S 263 Has Not Attained Its Finality? Iii) Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Holding That Consequential Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 263 Of The Act As Void As Initio Without Giving Any Liberty To The Revenue To Revive The Proceedings Consequent To Any Directions Or Order

deduction claimed at Rs. 4,11,52,839/- u/s 801C of the IT. Act, 1961 are disallowed and added to the returned income of the assessee. I am satisfied that the assessee company has furnished inaccurate particulars of income hence penalty proceedings u/s 271

HEALTH BIOTECH LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the disposal of the same.

penalty order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) and then confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 6. That the appellant craves for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal

M/S SHIVALIK ENTERPRISES ,SHIMLA vs. ITO, W-1, SHIMLA

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

deduction subsequently on account of substantial expansion. The Ld. Assessing officer also initiated penalty proceedings and levied penalty u/s 271

THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAMPUR

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

u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld.\nCommissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFA),\nDelhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to\nuphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in levying a penalty of Rs.\n66,38,400/- without specifying the limb of Section 271

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, an income of Rs. 1,48,17110/- as reflected in the income tax return for the year under consideration, is subjected to income tax at the then prevailing tax rates. Penalty u/s 271

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, an income of Rs. 1,48,17110/- as reflected in the income tax return for the year under consideration, is subjected to income tax at the then prevailing tax rates. Penalty u/s 271

UPS INVERTER.COM,PARWANOO vs. DCIT, CIRCLE (NOW ITO), PARWANOO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 529/Chd/2023 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम Ups Inverter.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Vill. Nariyal, Near Sector-4, Income Tax, Circle Parwanoo, (H.P.) Pawnaoo (Now, Ito- Parwanoo) "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aabfu 7064R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. UPS Inverter v. Dy. CIT 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee claimed deduction

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are also initiated. i) Further the assessee claimed other income of Rs. 17,01,064/- on which assessee also claimed deduction u/s

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are also initiated. i) Further the assessee claimed other income of Rs. 17,01,064/- on which assessee also claimed deduction u/s

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are also initiated. i) Further the assessee claimed other income of Rs. 17,01,064/- on which assessee also claimed deduction u/s

ACIT, C-6, LUDHIANA vs. M/S ARADHANA FABRICS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was being imposed on the assessee. The AO also held that evidently, the assessee had taken a chance by filing wrong particulars, knowing the policy of the Department regarding scrutiny assessments, where-under, only a small number of returns ITA 1605/CHD/2018 A.Y.2012-13 Page 5 of 10 are taken up for scrutiny, else

M/S SHRI RAM CYLINDERS (UNIT II),CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(1), CHANDIGARH

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

deduction of Rs. 27,10,822/- for A.Y. 2011- 12 claimed by the assessee is disallowed. Accordingly an addition ofRs. 27,10,822/- is made to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271