DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, observing as under:- “10. Based on above discussion the following conclusions may be drawn A. The assessee

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, observing as under:- “10. Based on above discussion the following conclusions may be drawn A. The assessee

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, observing as under:- “10. Based on above discussion the following conclusions may be drawn A. The assessee

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, observing as under:- “10. Based on above discussion the following conclusions may be drawn A. The assessee

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, observing as under:- “10. Based on above discussion the following conclusions may be drawn A. The assessee

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)

section 271 of the I.T.Act,1961., dated 29.11.2013 are invalid and bad in law. 2. On the facts and are the circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty order dated 30.05.2014 passed u/s 271(l)(c) is invalid and bad in law. The appellant hereby very humbly prays Your Honor to admit the additional grounds raised

HYCRON ELECTRONICS vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

section 271(1)(c) as it has neither concealed any particulars of income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee has relied on various case laws to support his case as per the record. The relevant extracts of the same are reproduced as under:- 10. In support of the appellant's contention that penalty u/s 271

DCIT, PARWANOO vs. M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS, SOLAN

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

section 271(1)(c) as it has neither concealed any particulars of income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee has relied on various case laws to support his case as per the record. The relevant extracts of the same are reproduced as under:- 10. In support of the appellant's contention that penalty u/s 271

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds are admitted for adjudication. 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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds are admitted for adjudication. 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

JARNAIL SINGH GILL,JAGRAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JAGRAON

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

Bench: The Tribunal & The Matter Was Remanded Back To Ao For Fresh Adjudication. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed

section 271(l)(b) of the IT. Act is confirmed to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-. 9. It was accordingly, submitted that where the Bench so decide that the penalty has to be levied, then the such penalty should be restricted to an amount of Rs. 10,000/- only. 10. Per contra, the Ld. DR has relied

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 397/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S Happy Steels Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम B-Xxix, 2254, Central Circle-2, Kanganwal Road, Ludhiana P.O. Jugiana, Ludhiana 141120 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaach6019D अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

11,50,050/- only. On this issue, we are of the considered opinion that it has always been an established practice to take both the assessment order and the penalty proceedings as separate and distinct proceedings. An issue may call for an addition during the assessment proceedings but it does not necessarily call for levy of penalty u/s Section 271

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case it is noticed that the A.O. while framing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act made three addition i.e; Rs. 81,072/- on account of less income shown under the head “income from other

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

11. The argument of Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue is that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer while imposing penalty clearly stated that it was a notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271AAB of the Act. Therefore, the assessee was aware that he had to face penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271AAB

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

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

section 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

section 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

section 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