DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

3) of the Act but also in the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153A of the Act, Even, in respect of the some of the assessment years i.e. assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 stood completed and had not abated as on the date of search on 2.5.2012 and since no incriminating material was found during

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

3) of the Act but also in the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153A of the Act, Even, in respect of the some of the assessment years i.e. assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 stood completed and had not abated as on the date of search on 2.5.2012 and since no incriminating material was found during

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

3) of the Act but also in the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153A of the Act, Even, in respect of the some of the assessment years i.e. assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 stood completed and had not abated as on the date of search on 2.5.2012 and since no incriminating material was found during

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

3) of the Act but also in the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153A of the Act, Even, in respect of the some of the assessment years i.e. assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 stood completed and had not abated as on the date of search on 2.5.2012 and since no incriminating material was found during

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

3) of the Act but also in the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153A of the Act, Even, in respect of the some of the assessment years i.e. assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 stood completed and had not abated as on the date of search on 2.5.2012 and since no incriminating material was found during

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)

3. The matter was carried in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A),where the assessee reiterated the contentions made before the AO and further contended that since no incriminating material was found during search no penalty could be imposed even by invoking Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee

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

3. During the course of penalty proceedings the assessee contended that the entire surrendered income had been disclosed in the return of income filed and no amount had been added or disallowed while computing total income of the year, therefore no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee

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

3. During the course of penalty proceedings the assessee contended that the entire surrendered income had been disclosed in the return of income filed and no amount had been added or disallowed while computing total income of the year, therefore no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee

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

11 wherein it was held penalty under section 271(1)(c) levied upon the assessee on incorrect claim for deduction was not justifiable as the same was on account of change of law and therefore, a matter of bona fide mistake..,.. (iii) Shree Krishna Electricals 2009-23 VST249 (SC) Penalty cannot be levied merely because exemption claimed

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

11 wherein it was held penalty under section 271(1)(c) levied upon the assessee on incorrect claim for deduction was not justifiable as the same was on account of change of law and therefore, a matter of bona fide mistake..,.. (iii) Shree Krishna Electricals 2009-23 VST249 (SC) Penalty cannot be levied merely because exemption claimed

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/-, i.e., addition upheld by the ld. CIT(A) and levied penalty u/s Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act of Rs. 3

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

3 o f Section 271AAB of the Act talks about issuing the notice u/s 274 of the Act. So for initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act the first step to be taken by ld. A.O is to issue a valid notice u/s 274 of the Act. Sub- section (1) to Section 274 of the Act provides

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 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)

3) for the has been unrelentingly non-compliant A.Y. 2012-13 which was and has only resorted to making provided on the same day. baseless allegations. There has only been deliberate noncompliance of W.r.t. the opportunity heard notice u/s 142(1) dated 30.08.2019." regarding penalty u/s 271(1)(b), the assessee vide A show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

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

3 notices issued by the AO under section 142(1) were issued prior to the date of alleged transfer on 03.08.2017. Therefore, the said explanation of the assessee is without any substance or merits. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we restrict the penalty levied under section 271(l)(b) of the Act to one default

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 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of section 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation:--- For the purpose of this section,__ (a)……… (b)………. (c) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income

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

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