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)

disallowance of interest was settled vide order dated 30.04.2014. It was made clear that no penalty proceedings would be initiated. This position was crystal clear on 30.04.2014 and the appellant in violation to this settled position filed the return of income on 27.11.2014 and claimed the expenditure/ deduction... Therefore the AO was right in levying the penalty for filing inaccurate

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)

disallowance of interest was settled vide order dated 30.04.2014. It was made clear that no penalty proceedings would be initiated. This position was crystal clear on 30.04.2014 and the appellant in violation to this settled position filed the return of income on 27.11.2014 and claimed the expenditure/ deduction... Therefore the AO was right in levying the penalty for filing inaccurate

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)

disallowance of interest was settled vide order dated 30.04.2014. It was made clear that no penalty proceedings would be initiated. This position was crystal clear on 30.04.2014 and the appellant in violation to this settled position filed the return of income on 27.11.2014 and claimed the expenditure/ deduction... Therefore the AO was right in levying the penalty for filing inaccurate

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)

disallowance of interest was settled vide order dated 30.04.2014. It was made clear that no penalty proceedings would be initiated. This position was crystal clear on 30.04.2014 and the appellant in violation to this settled position filed the return of income on 27.11.2014 and claimed the expenditure/ deduction... Therefore the AO was right in levying the penalty for filing inaccurate

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

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 u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 69,68,581/- on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 2,23,34,758/-. 4. That

SH. JAGMOHAN SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

penalty of Rs. 13,13,910/- u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declared total income of Rs. 6,24,782/- on 31/03/2010. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. During

AKM RESORTS,MOHALI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that he has no explanation to offer. 2.5 The ld. AO keeping in view that the assessee has not filed any reply was left with no other option but to decide the issue of penalty on merits on the basis of material available on record. ITA 42/CHD/2024

SH. AMAN SETH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee 3.6 I am satisfied that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income of Rs. 8,61,473/-. Penalty proceedings 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

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

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Disallowance of expenditure Rs.90,11,684/- out of total expenditure\namounting to Rs.1,80,23,368/-.\niii)\nAddition of Rs.3,58,80,358/- claimed as corpus fund.\niv)\nDisallowance of 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

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 SHREE GANESH JEWELLERS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE V(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Hence, the contention of the assessee has been not found acceptable. 5. In view of above facts and discussion, it has been observed that it is a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 270A(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for under- reporting of income, for amount

M/S UFV INDIA GLOBAL EDUCATION (SOCIETY),CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 516/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S Ufv India Global Vs. The Dcit Exemption, Circle-1, Education, बनाम Chandigarh Ggd Sanatan Dharma College, Ector 32-C, Chandigarh (U.T.) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcu7691M अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, rather the assessee was under a bonafide belief that the exemption u/s 11 would be allowed in Asstt. Year 2016- 17. 19. Further, the notice u/s 143(2) had been issued on 22.09.2019 is only intimation about the case having been taken under scrutiny and the reason for selection of case under scrutiny was 'expenditure

ADITYA FOOTWEARS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDITIONAL, JOINT, DEPUTY, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 38/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Aditya Footwears Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, Sco 80-81, 3Rd Floor, बनाम Ward-2(1), Sector 17 C, Ambala Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aakca1196N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

penalty u/s 271(l)(b) of the Act without considering the response submitted by the appellant company. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of disallowances

M/S SILVER OAKS TOWNSHIP LTD.,BATHINDA vs. DCIT-CC-III, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 183/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Silver Oaks Township Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-Iii, Ltd., बनाम Ludhiana 163, Urban Estate, Phase Ii, Bhatinda 151001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajcs3445B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03 .02.2025

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.7,39,283/-, which have been imposed in contravention to the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that all such particulars of the payments having been made u/s 40A(3) have already been disclosed and the disallowance

MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, VILLAGE MANSOORWAL, TEHSIL ZIRA HEAD OFFICE, OLD CANTT ROAD, FARIDKOT,FARIDKOT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

penalty of Rs.2,546/- as well as CSR expenditure for Rs.5,31,386/- and made aggregate disallowance of Rs.5,33,932/-. The Ld. AO also disallowed late payment of employees contribution to PF / ESI u/s u/s 36(1)(va) for Rs.9,81,006/-. 2.10 The various additions as made by Ld. AO while framing the assessment could be summarized

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, QUILA CHOWK

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

penalty of Rs.2,546/- as well as CSR expenditure for Rs.5,31,386/- and made aggregate disallowance of Rs.5,33,932/-. The Ld. AO also disallowed late payment of employees contribution to PF / ESI u/s u/s 36(1)(va) for Rs.9,81,006/-. 2.10 The various additions as made by Ld. AO while framing the assessment could be summarized