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. 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. 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. 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

BALWINDER SINGH,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SUNAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

10-01-2019 to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance as the assessee was filing appeal before the Ld CIT(A) against the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act as the last date for filing the appeal was 30-01-2020, however, the learned AO ignored the submissions so made and preferred to impose the penalty

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

section 271(1)(c) despite the fact that there is neither concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming penalty and rejecting the contention of the assessee that the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings, as such merely

HEALTH BIOTECH LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the disposal of the same.

34,758/-. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) even when the initiation and imposition of that penalty was totally vague. 5. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the impugned penalty order

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

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

10 that a sum of Rs. 278 crores which was deposited by the Chandigarh Housing Board in the Government treasury, is agreed to be adjusted in income tax head and it is treated as final in so far as liability of income tax is concerned. Having regard to the settlement reached between the parties, it is clear that the dispute

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

10 that a sum of Rs. 278 crores which was deposited by the Chandigarh Housing Board in the Government treasury, is agreed to be adjusted in income tax head and it is treated as final in so far as liability of income tax is concerned. Having regard to the settlement reached between the parties, it is clear that the dispute

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

10 that a sum of Rs. 278 crores which was deposited by the Chandigarh Housing Board in the Government treasury, is agreed to be adjusted in income tax head and it is treated as final in so far as liability of income tax is concerned. Having regard to the settlement reached between the parties, it is clear that the dispute

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

10 that a sum of Rs. 278 crores which was deposited by the Chandigarh Housing Board in the Government treasury, is agreed to be adjusted in income tax head and it is treated as final in so far as liability of income tax is concerned. Having regard to the settlement reached between the parties, it is clear that the dispute

M/S PIONEER PESTICIDES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Pioneer Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Sco 82-83, Sector 8-C, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh

34,215/- invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing the particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. During the penalty proceedings, the Assessing officer issued show cause notice dated 17.9.2015 stating as to why the penalty be imposed u/s 271

PARAS AND SHUBHAM CHAUDHARY LEGAL HEIR OF KANHAIYA LAL,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

34, additional compensation under Section 23(1A) and solatium under Section 23(2) of the 1894 Act, would be extremely difficult after all these years, will not be done.” 10.2 The Income Tax Department has also not disputed this aspect because AO is also taxing this amount on receipt basis, otherwise land of the assessee was acquired long back

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini