DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

26 invite penalty under the relevant provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Though the words used in the first part, i.e. charging provision are ‘Particulars’ of income, however, for levy of penalty it is not the ‘Particulars’ of income but rather the ‘quantum of income itself, that is added to the taxable income of the assessee

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

26 invite penalty under the relevant provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Though the words used in the first part, i.e. charging provision are ‘Particulars’ of income, however, for levy of penalty it is not the ‘Particulars’ of income but rather the ‘quantum of income itself, that is added to the taxable income of the assessee

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

26 invite penalty under the relevant provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Though the words used in the first part, i.e. charging provision are ‘Particulars’ of income, however, for levy of penalty it is not the ‘Particulars’ of income but rather the ‘quantum of income itself, that is added to the taxable income of the assessee

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

26 invite penalty under the relevant provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Though the words used in the first part, i.e. charging provision are ‘Particulars’ of income, however, for levy of penalty it is not the ‘Particulars’ of income but rather the ‘quantum of income itself, that is added to the taxable income of the assessee

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

26 invite penalty under the relevant provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Though the words used in the first part, i.e. charging provision are ‘Particulars’ of income, however, for levy of penalty it is not the ‘Particulars’ of income but rather the ‘quantum of income itself, that is added to the taxable income of the assessee

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)

Section 271(1)(b); that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A)fell into grave error by confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. 7. The penalty in question was imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act vide order dated

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:

26-09-2016. The Ld. Assessing Officer after going through the reply passed an ITA No. 695/Chd/2018- M/s SEL Textiles ltd., Ludhiana 3 order u/s 271 AAB on 30-09-2016 whereby levied penalty under Clause (c) of Sec. 271AAB at Rs. 4,31,99,747/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the above orderof the Assessing officer levying the penalty under

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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section. 5.2.2. From the above decisions, it is clear that the determination whether the penalty is leviable or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and cannot be brought in to any straight jacket formula. 5.3. Brief facts in the present case are that the Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) was designated as Nodal Agency by the Chandigarh

SH. SATPAL GOSAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

26 wherein the assessee had filed revised return showing higher income and explained that the same was done to buy peace of mind and to avoid litigation and it was held that penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of subsequently declared higher income. However, in the case under consideration notice u/s 148 was issued on 04.01.2010 and the revised

INDER PAL SINGH LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED SATNAM SINGH 171789, STREET NO.8, GURU TEG BAHADUR JAGRAON,PUNJAB vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JAGRAON , PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

10 10/4/2017 To Cash 85 2,00,000 11 11/4/2017 To Cash 93 2,00,000 12 12/4/2017 To Cash 98 2,00,000 13 13/4/2017 To Cash 104 2,00,000 14 14/4/2017 To Cash 109 2,00,000 15 15/4/2017 To Cash 115 2,00,000 16 16/4/2017 To Cash 121 2,00,000 17 17/4/2017 To Cash

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

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

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.

26, of Income Tax, Chandigarh. Circle 5(1), Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAFFC0194A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt.Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 25.08.2021 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 04.10.2021 (Hearing through webex

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 25. The Assessee feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the AO’s order dt. 26/12/2016 had filed first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order has dismissed the same. The core finding of CIT(A) is as follows

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

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

26 dealing with the ‘Dissolution is in violation of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, your application for registration u/s 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 may not be considered favorably. It can only be considered an amendment of this clause and receipt of amended Rules and Regulations.” Thereafter the assessee society filed return of income