SH RAMESH KUMAR DUDANI,MOHALI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE -6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

depreciation and Rs. 1,40,955/- on account of disallowance of Foreign Travelling Expenses. Out of the aforesaid additions, the addition of Rs. 3,15,213/- was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dt. 24/10/2016 in Appeal No. 149/2014- 15 and the A.O. herself dropped the penalty on the addition of Rs. 1,40,955/-, the only addition

ASPEE SONS,SOLAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO, PARWANOO

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

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

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 leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal

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

AL RASHEED CHARITABLE SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. JCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to\nRs.3,34,759/-.\n\nPenalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act also came to be\ninitiated by the AO in respect of additions/disallowances made of\nRs.7,01,67,544/- by the AO by issue of a notice u/s.271(1)(c) read with\nsection 274 of the Act, dated: 20.12.2018. The assessee

M/S COLOUR COTTEX PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-5(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

u/s 271 (1) ( c) .That is clearly not the intention of legislature it is further submitted that the assessee is a honest tax payer and has been cooperating in assessment proceeding for the last several years. He further relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana high court in the case of CIT vs Ajaib Singh

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HIMALAYAN EXPRESSWAY LTD., PINJORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

depreciation. 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR, Dr. Gulshan Raj relied on various case laws and filed written submissions as under: Sub: Written Submission in the above case- reg. In the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271

M/S HOTEL OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY,CHAMBA vs. ITO, BANIKHET

In the result this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 772/Chd/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(b) without appreciating written submissions made. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed action of ITO in adopting status of assessee firm as AOP without ITA Nos. 772-c-12, 485-c-17 & 496-c-18- M/s Oak Valley Residency, Chamba 3 appreciating written submissions made in this regard. 6. That the learned

M/S OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY,DALHOUISE vs. ITO, DALHOUSIE AT, BANIKHET

In the result this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 772/Chd/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(b) without appreciating written submissions made. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed action of ITO in adopting status of assessee firm as AOP without ITA Nos. 772-c-12, 485-c-17 & 496-c-18- M/s Oak Valley Residency, Chamba 3 appreciating written submissions made in this regard. 6. That the learned

M/S OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY,DALHOUSIE vs. ITO, BANIKHET

In the result this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 772/Chd/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(b) without appreciating written submissions made. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed action of ITO in adopting status of assessee firm as AOP without ITA Nos. 772-c-12, 485-c-17 & 496-c-18- M/s Oak Valley Residency, Chamba 3 appreciating written submissions made in this regard. 6. That the learned

AABHAS SPINNERS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee claimed additional depreciation

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR BATRA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-3(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 120 & 121/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Shri Vijay Kumar Batra, The Acit, बनाम Circle 3(1), Prop M/S Adley Foundations, Chandigarh Sco 184, Sector 5,Panchkula Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aejpb0879B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation u/s 80IC of the Act for the first five assessment years starting from assessment year 2006-07. As per the provisions of section 80IC of the Act, the assessee was entitled to deduction @ 100% u/s 80IC of the Act for the first five years and thereafter for another five years @ 25%. However, the assessee in the 6th year claimed

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR BATRA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-3(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 120 & 121/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Shri Vijay Kumar Batra, The Acit, बनाम Circle 3(1), Prop M/S Adley Foundations, Chandigarh Sco 184, Sector 5,Panchkula Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aejpb0879B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation u/s 80IC of the Act for the first five assessment years starting from assessment year 2006-07. As per the provisions of section 80IC of the Act, the assessee was entitled to deduction @ 100% u/s 80IC of the Act for the first five years and thereafter for another five years @ 25%. However, the assessee in the 6th year claimed

S.D.S. ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2 The assessee has raised the following effective ground of appeal: 2. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) on disallowance of depreciation

M/S SABER PAPER LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2013-14 respectively passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-5 Ludhiana. 2. Since the issues involved are common and the appeals were heard together, so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake

M/S SABER PAPER BOARD PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2013-14 respectively passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-5 Ludhiana. 2. Since the issues involved are common and the appeals were heard together, so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake

M/S MRS. BECTOR FOOD SPECIALITIES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the followings disallowances:- i) Disallowance of depreciation on capital receipt Rs. 2,46,000/- of subsidy

ACIT,CIRCLE PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. M/S V.K.SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTOR, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 79/Chd/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 बनाम The Acit, M/S V.K. Sood Engineers & Circle, Panchkula Contractor Ddsjv, Unit-Iii, H.No. 20, Sector-6 Panchkula-134109, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aagfv0584J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation claimed, however, restricted the addition of 20% made on account of expenses of personal nature to 10%. In the meantime the A.O. initiated the proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed penalty of Rs. 61,48,730/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee challenged the penalty order passed

M/S IOL CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-I, LUDHIANA

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

depreciation would be allowed accordingly when the asset is put to use. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act are initiated