DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

10% of the tax payable on such unexplained income as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. A cumulative reading of section 271(1)(c) read with section 115 BBE and 271AAC, would reveal that it is not barred under the Act for an assessee to declare an income in his return as an unexplained income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

10% of the tax payable on such unexplained income as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. A cumulative reading of section 271(1)(c) read with section 115 BBE and 271AAC, would reveal that it is not barred under the Act for an assessee to declare an income in his return as an unexplained income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

10% of the tax payable on such unexplained income as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. A cumulative reading of section 271(1)(c) read with section 115 BBE and 271AAC, would reveal that it is not barred under the Act for an assessee to declare an income in his return as an unexplained income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

10% of the tax payable on such unexplained income as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. A cumulative reading of section 271(1)(c) read with section 115 BBE and 271AAC, would reveal that it is not barred under the Act for an assessee to declare an income in his return as an unexplained income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

10% of the tax payable on such unexplained income as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. A cumulative reading of section 271(1)(c) read with section 115 BBE and 271AAC, would reveal that it is not barred under the Act for an assessee to declare an income in his return as an unexplained income

SH. CHETAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptash.Chetan Jain, Vs. The D.C.I.T., B-121, Pushap Vihar, Central Circle-Iii, Canal Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aaypj0618H (Appellant) (Respondent)

10. We have heard the Ld.DR and also gone through the orders of the authorities below and the order of the ITAT in the case of Munish Jain (supra).On going through the order of the I.T.A.T. in the case of Munish Jain (supra), We find that the facts of the present case and the issue involved are identical

SH. MUNISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

10. We shall first deal with the additional grounds raised since they challenge the jurisdiction to pass the penalty order. 11. In the context of the additional grounds raised, the Ld. counsel for assessee contended that the penalty notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 29.11.2013 was invalid and bad since

SH. MUNISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

10. We shall first deal with the additional grounds raised since they challenge the jurisdiction to pass the penalty order. 11. In the context of the additional grounds raised, the Ld. counsel for assessee contended that the penalty notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 29.11.2013 was invalid and bad since

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

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

PALACE INFRATECH PVT LTD,LUDHIANA vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.

u/s 132 but the assessee declares such income in the return of income & pays the tax together with interest on or before the specified date, then penalty @ 20% of the undisclosed income is leviable as per section 271AAB(l)(b). In other cases, not covered under clause (a) and clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271AAB, penalty

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 ,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 ,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

DCIT, C-1(E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S B.C.M. ARYA MODEL SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 The Dcit , Vs. B.C.M.Arya Model School, Circle-I (Exemptions), Shastri Nagar, Model Town, Chandigarh Ludhiana Pan No. Aaatb3979M

penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs.4,84,27,015/- were also initiated by the Assessing Officer against the assessee society separately. 4. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however

M/S HERITAGE MARKETING,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-3(2), CHANDIGARH

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Heritage Marketing Vs. The Ito Sco-64, F.F., Sector-20-C Ward-3(2), Dakshin Marg, Chandigarh Chandigarh

u/s 271(1)(c) Act. 2. Penalty in the present case has been levied on the addition made to the income of the assessee on account of difference in the Tax Deducted at Source(in short “TDS”) as reflected in Form No.26AS and that shown in the return of income , being attributed to gross receipts not declared in the return