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

exempt income u/s 14A. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated w.r.t. all the above referred restriction in deduction

M/S APEEJAY EDUCATION SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

271(1)(b). 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A)fell into grave error by confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. 2. The Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’), while imposing penalty in question, vide order dated 15.10.2019, observed as follows : "Vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 30.08.2019 the assessee was asked to submit some information/documents required

M/S PUNJAB HERITAGE & TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are hereby

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee had claimed exemption u/s 11 of the Act vide his application

M/S PUNJAB HERITAGE & TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are hereby

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee had claimed exemption u/s 11 of the Act vide his application

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

exemption u/s 11 vide letter dated 26.10.2020 as per chart reproduced above. Thus, the very basis of initiation of 143(2) proceedings loses its significance, since nothing was asked for by way of that notice. 20. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of Jurisdictional Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Smt. Neelu Garg

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:

271(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the “undisclosed income” term/expression has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

SMT. SHWETA JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

271(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

M/S MAHARAJA LIGHT & TENT SERVICES,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

271(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

SMT. VANI JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

271(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

SHIVOM COTSPIN LIMITED,KALA AMB vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 298 & 299/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15

271 (1)(c) of the Act. In view of this, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer in both these counts is ordered to be deleted. 7. At this stage, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that for the assessment year 2014-15, the penalty has also been levied on account of disallowance claimed by the assessee u/s

SHIVOM COTSPIN LIMITED,KALA AMB vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 298 & 299/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15

271 (1)(c) of the Act. In view of this, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer in both these counts is ordered to be deleted. 7. At this stage, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that for the assessment year 2014-15, the penalty has also been levied on account of disallowance claimed by the assessee u/s

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,SHIMLA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 271CA of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ankita Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) had held that when the additions in respect of which penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act was levied, are challenged in appeal before

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,NAHAN vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 271CA of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ankita Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) had held that when the additions in respect of which penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act was levied, are challenged in appeal before

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,NAHAN vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 271CA of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ankita Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) had held that when the additions in respect of which penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act was levied, are challenged in appeal before

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,SHIMLA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 271CA of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ankita Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) had held that when the additions in respect of which penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act was levied, are challenged in appeal before

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

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Exemptions\nChandigarh\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\n\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nराजस्वकी ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)\nShri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR for\nDr. Rohit Sharma, CIT, D.R\n\nसुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 29/01/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 25/02/2025\n\nआदेश/Order\nPER PARESH M. JOSHI, J.М. :\nThis

J.K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE-1,, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

exemption u/s 11 and the third appeal is in respect of sustenance of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10. 2. All these

J.K.EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

exemption u/s 11 and the third appeal is in respect of sustenance of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10. 2. All these

J. K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

exemption u/s 11 and the third appeal is in respect of sustenance of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10. 2. All these