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

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

u/s 271(l)(c) is against the well-established norms, case laws and jurisprudence of penalty under the Income Tax Act and against various judicial pronouncements. 9. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case where the assessee declared the income under the head Income From House Property

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

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

u/s 271(l)(c) is against the well-established norms, case laws and jurisprudence of penalty under the Income Tax Act and against various judicial pronouncements. 9. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case where the assessee declared the income under the head Income From House Property

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

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

u/s 271(l)(c) is against the well-established norms, case laws and jurisprudence of penalty under the Income Tax Act and against various judicial pronouncements. 9. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case where the assessee declared the income under the head Income From House Property

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

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

u/s 271(l)(c) is against the well-established norms, case laws and jurisprudence of penalty under the Income Tax Act and against various judicial pronouncements. 9. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case where the assessee declared the income under the head Income From House Property

SH. SATPAL GOSAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for alleged non- disclosure of long term capital gains. 2. That the assessee had declared long-term capital gains in his return filed U/S 148 which had been declared valid and accepted as per the order of C1T(Appeals) dated: 21.12.2011. 3. That by any reckoning, the issue being highly debatable

SH. PARMINDER SINGH MAVI,MORINDA vs. ITO, ROPAR

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as “Act”) respectively

M/S Y.D.SOLUTIONS,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD-4(5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property. The assessee carried the matter upto the level of Tribunal but could not succeed. ITA-41/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2013-14 Page 4 of 6 5. In the me antime, the AO levied the impugned penalty u/s 271

SH. ANIL TALWAR,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar

House No. 346, Sector 9, Chandigarh certain additions were made by the assessing officer. The additions were partly sustained in appeal by the CIT(A). On further appeal before the ITAT, the additions estimated by the AO and the CIT(A) to an extent were restricted to the additions proposed by the DVO in his valuation report. In the penalty

SH. PRINCE SHARMA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-5(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

properties owned by it and no rent actually having been earned and the addition being merely of notional rent, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. Copy of the order was placed before us. Further the Ld. counsel for assessee contended that even otherwise it had claimed one of the houses

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)

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 the course of assessment proceedings

SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') whereas Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the remaining part of penalty. 3. The society consisted of 95 members and was the owner of 21.2 acres, of which 500 square yards plots were held by 65 members, 1000 square yards

ITO, LUDHIANA vs. SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') whereas Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the remaining part of penalty. 3. The society consisted of 95 members and was the owner of 21.2 acres, of which 500 square yards plots were held by 65 members, 1000 square yards

SMT. SUREKHA THUKRAL ,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1) (c) in respect of addition to the income against the amount offered by the assessee under agreement with Assessing Officer that amount is being surrendered to buy the peace of mind if Assessing Officer agrees not to initiate any penalty proceeding. 6. That assessee prays to your honor for permission to take any additional ground before

M/S CAPRI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2013-14

house property’. However, the assessee company in this case was involved in the business of real estate. The rental income was returned as the main business income and, hence, the loan taken was for business purposes. He, therefore, denied the deduction u/s 24(b) of the Act and simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

u/s 271(1)(c) were for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income and as such the confirmation of penalty was against the law and facts of the case. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment in the case of Assessee Company is completed by the Assessing Officer under section

SH. VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA,,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.150/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

House No.164, Sector 27, Chandigarh merely because assessee had declared that it had invested in the purchase of the said property in the computation of income filed alongwith the return of income, does not discharge the onus upon the assessee to explain with evidence the source of investment in the said property. We reverse the finding of the CIT (Appeals

SH. ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.150/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

House No.164, Sector 27, Chandigarh merely because assessee had declared that it had invested in the purchase of the said property in the computation of income filed alongwith the return of income, does not discharge the onus upon the assessee to explain with evidence the source of investment in the said property. We reverse the finding of the CIT (Appeals

SH. AJAY KUMAR GUPTA,,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-I, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.150/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

House No.164, Sector 27, Chandigarh merely because assessee had declared that it had invested in the purchase of the said property in the computation of income filed alongwith the return of income, does not discharge the onus upon the assessee to explain with evidence the source of investment in the said property. We reverse the finding of the CIT (Appeals