DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s 132 of the Act on 2.5.2012 at the business premises of the aforesaid Janta Group as well as residential premises of the promoters and directors of the company. It is pertinent to mention here that all the returns up to assessment year 2011-12 were filed before the date of search

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s 132 of the Act on 2.5.2012 at the business premises of the aforesaid Janta Group as well as residential premises of the promoters and directors of the company. It is pertinent to mention here that all the returns up to assessment year 2011-12 were filed before the date of search

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s 132 of the Act on 2.5.2012 at the business premises of the aforesaid Janta Group as well as residential premises of the promoters and directors of the company. It is pertinent to mention here that all the returns up to assessment year 2011-12 were filed before the date of search

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s 132 of the Act on 2.5.2012 at the business premises of the aforesaid Janta Group as well as residential premises of the promoters and directors of the company. It is pertinent to mention here that all the returns up to assessment year 2011-12 were filed before the date of search

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s 132 of the Act on 2.5.2012 at the business premises of the aforesaid Janta Group as well as residential premises of the promoters and directors of the company. It is pertinent to mention here that all the returns up to assessment year 2011-12 were filed before the date of search

M/S HAPPY STEEL PRIVATE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahay

seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted at the business premises of the assessee ltd. company, who is in the business of iron and steel, on 27.08.2015. Assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T Act, 1961 on 29.12.2017 and income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.3

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

SH. ROSHAN LAL JINDAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is,

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1555/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

search and seizure operation, disclosed the manner of earning the same being from speculative dealings in commodities and also disclosed the income in its return of income, the assessee had not substantiated the manner of earning the undisclosed income and hence not fulfilled all the conditions specified u/s 2 71AAA for grant of immunity from penalty. The issue therefore

SH. ASHOK JINDAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

search and seizure operation, disclosed the manner of earning the same being from speculative dealings in commodities and also disclosed the income in its return of income, the assessee had not substantiated the manner of earning the undisclosed income and hence not fulfilled all the conditions specified u/s 2 71AAA for grant of immunity from penalty. The issue therefore

SH. AMIT JINDAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

search and seizure operation, disclosed the manner of earning the same being from speculative dealings in commodities and also disclosed the income in its return of income, the assessee had not substantiated the manner of earning the undisclosed income and hence not fulfilled all the conditions specified u/s 2 71AAA for grant of immunity from penalty. The issue therefore

M/S GANESH BUILDERS,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) in respect of income enhanced by him in the appellate order. 9. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.” 3. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee firm has also moved

M/S LUXMI BUILDERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) in respect of income enhanced by him in the appellate order. 9. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.” 3. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee firm has also moved

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. 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

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

ACIT,CC-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD., KHARAR

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

271 AAA, the penalty @ 10% on undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/- should have been imposed. It was further submitted that only 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/-, amounting to Rs. 12,51,641/-could be imposed as penalty. The Ld. CIT (A) vide order, dated 21.09. 2020, accordingly, restricted the penalty

ACIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD., KHARAR

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

271 AAA, the penalty @ 10% on undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/- should have been imposed. It was further submitted that only 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/-, amounting to Rs. 12,51,641/-could be imposed as penalty. The Ld. CIT (A) vide order, dated 21.09. 2020, accordingly, restricted the penalty

M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD.,KHARAR vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

271 AAA, the penalty @ 10% on undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/- should have been imposed. It was further submitted that only 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/-, amounting to Rs. 12,51,641/-could be imposed as penalty. The Ld. CIT (A) vide order, dated 21.09. 2020, accordingly, restricted the penalty