DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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. 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. 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

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)

11. Having said so we shall proceed to apply the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the present case. The notice issued to the assessee u/s 274 of the Act states that during the course of proceedings for the impugned year it appeared that the assessee had concealed particulars of his income and (emphasis supplied by us) furnished inaccurate particulars

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

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

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 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 29.11.2013 was invalid and bad since it was issued in standard proforma and the irrelevant portions of the notice had not been struck off. The Ld. counsel

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

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 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 29.11.2013 was invalid and bad since it was issued in standard proforma and the irrelevant portions of the notice had not been struck off. The Ld. counsel

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

5. We have considered the written submissions of the assessee as well as the arguments of the Id. D/R and carefully perused the impugned orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that the assessee has neither filed any return of income nor appeared before the AO in response to the notice under section 148 as well as notices

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

5. Facts of the case as appearing in the penalty order dt. 30/03/2018 in brief are that the assessment in this case was completed vide order dt. 31/03/2014 at an income of Rs. 25,71,060/- against the returned income of Rs. 20,33,820/- by making the following addition: 1. Addition of Rs. 81,072/- on account of less

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

penalty u/s Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act on addition of Rs. 11,50,050/- which was sustained on factual basis of the physical verification of stock taken by the department at the time of search. 397-Chd-2023 – M/s Happy Steel Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana 4 5

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

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

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