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

u/s 36(1)(viia) rather it is on Performing assets from which regular\nreturn/income is being received by the assessee, as discussed above.\"\n5.3 It is noted from the aforesaid observations that the claim of provision\nmade on Performing assets amounting Rs.2,21,28,000/-, was embedded by the\nappellant, in the overall claim of deduction made towards provision

SH. ANIL TALWAR,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) despite the fact that there is neither concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming penalty and rejecting the contention of the assessee that the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings, as such merely

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

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 25.06.2009 against whom appeal has been dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) by way of the impugned order). 2. It has been brought to our notice that assessee Shri Dinesh Sethi has died on 14.02.2024. Death Certificate of the assessee has been annexed by the ld. counsel for the assessee

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

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 25.06.2009 against whom appeal has been dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) by way of the impugned order). 2. It has been brought to our notice that assessee Shri Dinesh Sethi has died on 14.02.2024. Death Certificate of the assessee has been annexed by the ld. counsel for the assessee

M/S TRIVIKRAM REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER & CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

penalty levied by Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c). 9. Before us, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee recognized total sale consideration of all the floors built on plot no.44 and 113 during the subsequent year i.e. AY 2013-14 as per method of accounting regularly followed by the assessee. The Balance sheet and Profit & loss account

M/S OPTEK DISC MFG CO.,BADDI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE , PARWANOO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(l)(c) on disallowance of deduction u/s 80IC on interest income, by terming the same as settled issue, whereas as per the assessee the issue is still debatable, it is therefore prayed that the orders of authorities below may kindly be set aside.” 2. At the time of hearing, an adjournment application was moved on behalf

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

113 ITR 685 held that "the power conferred on Appellate Authority by Section 2 which is exercised in accordance with procedure with Section 250 indicate and amplitude and width which is no less wide than that of an ITO and the Appellate Authority could substitute the order of the ITO by one of his own." From the above

M/S LUXMI BUILDERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

u/s 153D, as part of the assessment record and draft assessment order, even though addition was made by the Ld. AO on 54 plots for which documents were found during the search. The Ld. AR highlighted the affidavit from Shri Kashmiri Lal which is also part of seized record in respect of those 4 plots which affidavit contained completely different

M/S GANESH BUILDERS,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

u/s 153D, as part of the assessment record and draft assessment order, even though addition was made by the Ld. AO on 54 plots for which documents were found during the search. The Ld. AR highlighted the affidavit from Shri Kashmiri Lal which is also part of seized record in respect of those 4 plots which affidavit contained completely different

BAHADUR SINGH ,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

113 days for which the assessee has filed the condonation application which is placed on record. 3. After considering the condonation application filed by the assessee in the present appeal, we condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S INCITE HOMECARE PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) are initiated on this point for furnishing inaccurate particular income. 9.1. A perusal of the impugned order shows that considering the written submissions of the assessee and the arguments advanced, the CIT(A) deleted the addition holding as under : 14. I have carefully considered the appellant's various submission. I have also gone through

SH. RAVINANDAN KUMAR,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes (R

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars of income are being initiated separately. (Addition of Rs.40,53,426/-) 5. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and stated that despite reiterating his contention which were made before the AO, before the CIT(A) also, as reproduced at para

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

271 | 94 | Non-Resident\n| | 07-01-2017 | 31.03.2017 | 83 | | | \n| 2017-18 | 01.04.2017 | 18-07-2017 | 108 | 328 | 37 | Non-Resident\n\n| | 23-08-2017 | 31.03.2018 | 220 | | | \n| 2018-19 | 01.04.2018 | 31-03-2019 | 365 | 365 | 0 | Non-Resident

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

271 | 94 | Non-Resident\n| | 07-01-2017\n31.03.2017 | 83 | | |\n| 2017-18 | 01.04.2017\n18-07-2017 | 108 | 328 | 37 | Non-Resident\n\n| | 23-08-2017\n31.03.2018 | 220 | | |\n| 2018-19 | 01.04.2018\n31-03-2019 | 365 | 365 | 0 | Non-Resident\n| | 01-04-2019\n09-07-2019 | 99 | | |\n| 2019-20 | | 323 | 43 | Non-Resident

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

271 | 94 | Non-Resident |\n| | 10-08-2016 | 16-12-2016 | 127 | | | |\n| | 07-01-2017 | 31.03.2017 | 83 | | | |\n| 2017-18 | 01.04.2017 | 18-07-2017 | 108 | 328 | 37 | Non-Resident |\n| | 23-08-2017 | 31.03.2018 | 220 | | | |\n| 2018-19 | 01.04.2018 | 31-03-2019 | 365 | 365 | 0 | Non-Resident

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini