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. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)© fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot he levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. The computation of penalty with respect to the tax at Rs. 51,54,120/- is therefore contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the penalty imposed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

u/s 271(l)© fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot he levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. The computation of penalty with respect to the tax at Rs. 51,54,120/- is therefore contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the penalty imposed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)© fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot he levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. The computation of penalty with respect to the tax at Rs. 51,54,120/- is therefore contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the penalty imposed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)© fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot he levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. The computation of penalty with respect to the tax at Rs. 51,54,120/- is therefore contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the penalty imposed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)© fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot he levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. The computation of penalty with respect to the tax at Rs. 51,54,120/- is therefore contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the penalty imposed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)© fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot he levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. The computation of penalty with respect to the tax at Rs. 51,54,120/- is therefore contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the penalty imposed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)© fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot he levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. The computation of penalty with respect to the tax at Rs. 51,54,120/- is therefore contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the penalty imposed

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

SH. MUNISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During the course of penalty proceedings the assessee contended that the entire surrendered income had been disclosed in the return of income filed and no amount had been added or disallowed while computing total income of the year, therefore no penalty u/s

SH. MUNISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During the course of penalty proceedings the assessee contended that the entire surrendered income had been disclosed in the return of income filed and no amount had been added or disallowed while computing total income of the year, therefore no penalty u/s

M/S PIONEER PESTICIDES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Pioneer Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Sco 82-83, Sector 8-C, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh

disallowance has been made u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act while relying upon the decision in the case of Abhishek Industries (supra), the penalty u/s 271

M/S CORE METAL KRAFTS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-5(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

disallowing the amount remaining unpaid by specific due date would not attract penalty; iii) Pr.CIT Vs. Torque Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 81 Taxman.com 283 (P&H); iv) CIT Vs. Balkishan Dhawan HUF (2013) 40 Taxman.com 208 (P&H) for the proposition that merely because the assessee’s claim for expenditure was not accepted, penalty u/s 271

M/S KOEING SOLUTIONS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms.Annapurna Guptam/S Koeing Solutions Ltd., Vs. The D.C.I.T., Plot No.22, Industrial Area, Circle 1(I), Phase-Ii, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. Pan: Aabck9007D (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of interest made u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised the following ground before us: “1) That Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Chandigarh has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and has thereby erred in sustaining penalty u/s 271

M/S SEL TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, theappeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.695/Chd/2018 धििागरणवर्ग / Assessment Year :2014-15 बिाम M/S Sel Textiles Limited, The Dcit, 273-74,G.T. Road, Central Circle-Iii, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana Ludhiana स्थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aancs0401M अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent धििागररतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राजस्वकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh. Ram Mohan, Cit Dr सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2019 उदघोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2019 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg:

u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act,1961. Assessment was framed by the Ld. Assessing Officer computing the total income at Rs.33,73,75,950/- after making various additions / disallowances vide order dated 30-03-2016. The Assessing Officer also issued a penalty notice under Clause (a) of Sec. 271

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

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

penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) should be levied in this case. 5. The CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts and in law in upholding penally of Rs 16,670/- on addition/disallowances upheld by the CIT(A) in quantum proceedings. 6. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case of disallowances

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

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

penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) should be levied in this case. 5. The CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts and in law in upholding penally of Rs 16,670/- on addition/disallowances upheld by the CIT(A) in quantum proceedings. 6. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case of disallowances

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

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

penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) should be levied in this case. 5. The CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts and in law in upholding penally of Rs 16,670/- on addition/disallowances upheld by the CIT(A) in quantum proceedings. 6. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case of disallowances

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

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

penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) should be levied in this case. 5. The CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts and in law in upholding penally of Rs 16,670/- on addition/disallowances upheld by the CIT(A) in quantum proceedings. 6. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case of disallowances