DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

11. We find force in the above contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessees. Admittedly, the returns up to the assessment year 2010-11 in relation to the captioned appeals were filed by the assessee much prior to the date of search action and on the date of search action, the original assessment proceedings already stood completed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

11. We find force in the above contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessees. Admittedly, the returns up to the assessment year 2010-11 in relation to the captioned appeals were filed by the assessee much prior to the date of search action and on the date of search action, the original assessment proceedings already stood completed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

11. We find force in the above contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessees. Admittedly, the returns up to the assessment year 2010-11 in relation to the captioned appeals were filed by the assessee much prior to the date of search action and on the date of search action, the original assessment proceedings already stood completed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

11. We find force in the above contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessees. Admittedly, the returns up to the assessment year 2010-11 in relation to the captioned appeals were filed by the assessee much prior to the date of search action and on the date of search action, the original assessment proceedings already stood completed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

11. We find force in the above contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessees. Admittedly, the returns up to the assessment year 2010-11 in relation to the captioned appeals were filed by the assessee much prior to the date of search action and on the date of search action, the original assessment proceedings already stood completed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

11. We find force in the above contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessees. Admittedly, the returns up to the assessment year 2010-11 in relation to the captioned appeals were filed by the assessee much prior to the date of search action and on the date of search action, the original assessment proceedings already stood completed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of authorities below and cancel the penalty. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 10. The issue of levy of penalty on this issue under appeal is squarely covered by the order of the ITAT referred supra. Following the same, the levy

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of authorities below and cancel the penalty. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 10. The issue of levy of penalty on this issue under appeal is squarely covered by the order of the ITAT referred supra. Following the same, the levy

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

d), in addition to tax, if any, payable] by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed [three times], the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or fringe benefits or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income or fringe benefits. [Explanation 1

AKM RESORTS,MOHALI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 2.7 Basis above premises, the ld. AO concluded that assessee is liable to penal action on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and default has been committed by the assessee within the meaning of Section 271(1

DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. SHRI GURU GOBIND SINGH FOUNDATION, MOGA

In the result appeal of the Department as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargdci T, C-1 (E) Shri Guru Gobind Singh Foundation Circle- 1 (Exemption) 601/11, Tanki Wali Gali No. 2, Dashmesh Chandigarh Nagar Vs. Moga- Punjab Pan No. – Aadts0332A Appellant Respondent

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars are initiated on this account. 6. Assessee has given this loan to its sister concern and showing the same into the books as loan/advances recoverable. This amount is fund of assessee, which should be part of corpus/capital and deposited in modes u/s 11(5). Assessee has shown this as advance

J.K.EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

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

11 and the third appeal is in respect of sustenance of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10. 2. All these cases are heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With the consent of both the parties, appeal in ITA No. 126/Asr/2019 for A.Y 2008-09 was taken

J.K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE-1,, CHANDIGARH

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

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

11 and the third appeal is in respect of sustenance of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10. 2. All these cases are heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With the consent of both the parties, appeal in ITA No. 126/Asr/2019 for A.Y 2008-09 was taken

J. K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

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

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

11 and the third appeal is in respect of sustenance of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10. 2. All these cases are heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With the consent of both the parties, appeal in ITA No. 126/Asr/2019 for A.Y 2008-09 was taken

MANPREET SINGH BHULLAR,PARWANOO vs. ITO, PARWANOO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

d) The AR contended that merely because no confirmation could be given as the party has left (the case being old case) there is no reason why the entire amount be held bogus. e) The AR also relied on various judicial precedents to buttress his point. 5.1.1 The appellate authority thus concluded that the CIT(A) directed as under

SHRI DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

11. As discussed above, nothing has been brought to our notice which can persuade us to take a different view. We have observed that a credit entry was made in the Current Account of the assessee which would indicate that assessee has received this money and if he has no liability qua this amount, then it is to be treated

SH. DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

11. As discussed above, nothing has been brought to our notice which can persuade us to take a different view. We have observed that a credit entry was made in the Current Account of the assessee which would indicate that assessee has received this money and if he has no liability qua this amount, then it is to be treated

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

D E R PER BENCH The present four appeals are directed at the instance of the assessee against separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 01.07.2025 passed in assessment year 2015-16. ITA No.925 to 928/CHD/2025 A.Y.2015-16 2 2. ITA No.925/CHD/2025 emerges out of a quantum proceeding against an assessment order dated