DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

10. Based on above discussion the following conclusions may be drawn A. The assessee has deposited various amounts in cash in her hank accounts, offered the same in his return of income under the head "Income from other "sources", has not submitted any explanation regarding the source of the same either during assessment proceedings or current penalty proceedings

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

10. Based on above discussion the following conclusions may be drawn A. The assessee has deposited various amounts in cash in her hank accounts, offered the same in his return of income under the head "Income from other "sources", has not submitted any explanation regarding the source of the same either during assessment proceedings or current penalty proceedings

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

10. Based on above discussion the following conclusions may be drawn A. The assessee has deposited various amounts in cash in her hank accounts, offered the same in his return of income under the head "Income from other "sources", has not submitted any explanation regarding the source of the same either during assessment proceedings or current penalty proceedings

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

10. Based on above discussion the following conclusions may be drawn A. The assessee has deposited various amounts in cash in her hank accounts, offered the same in his return of income under the head "Income from other "sources", has not submitted any explanation regarding the source of the same either during assessment proceedings or current penalty proceedings

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

10. Based on above discussion the following conclusions may be drawn A. The assessee has deposited various amounts in cash in her hank accounts, offered the same in his return of income under the head "Income from other "sources", has not submitted any explanation regarding the source of the same either during assessment proceedings or current penalty proceedings

SH RAMESH KUMAR DUDANI,MOHALI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE -6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

10. In his rival submissions the Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that since the penalty levied by the A.O. was less than Rs. 20,000/- there was no need of obtain the approval from the Joint / Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and as the assessee concealed the income

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

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. 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

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

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. SUKHWINDER SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Us Challenging The Levy Of Penalty Both On Legal Ground As Well As On Merits Of The Case :

10. We have considered the rival submissions and do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in canceling the penalty. In this case, the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty on this issue in furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer in the penalty order also levied the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1]Where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Under Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c), voluntary disclosure of concealed income does not absolve assessee of s. 271(1)(c) penalty if the assessee fails to offer an explanation which is bona fide and proves that

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271AAA is not leviable. 11. In view of the above judicial precedents we find that the assessee has specified and substantiated the manner of earning the income and has not violated any of the conditions specified u/s 271AAA(2), for granting immunity from penalty. 12. We therefore hold that no penalty u/s 271AAA could be levied in the present

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271AAA is not leviable. 11. In view of the above judicial precedents we find that the assessee has specified and substantiated the manner of earning the income and has not violated any of the conditions specified u/s 271AAA(2), for granting immunity from penalty. 12. We therefore hold that no penalty u/s 271AAA could be levied in the present

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)

u/s 271 DA to the tune of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- on account of alleged violation of section 269ST. 2. That no proper or reasonable opportunity has been afforded to the appellant to represent the case since no notice was received on the email of assessee or on the email of his counsel or through physical mode. That

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

38,87,500/- during the year under consideration and disclosed the same in return filed. (ii) The income tax alongwith interest was paid on this surrendered amount. (iii) The appellant has substantiated the manner of earning undisclosed income. 5.3 I have gone through the order of Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in case of DCIT vs Shri Sanjeev Goyal

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