DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)© fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot he levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. The computation of penalty with respect to the tax at Rs. 51,54,120/- is therefore contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the penalty imposed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)© fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot he levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. The computation of penalty with respect to the tax at Rs. 51,54,120/- is therefore contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the penalty imposed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)© fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot he levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. The computation of penalty with respect to the tax at Rs. 51,54,120/- is therefore contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the penalty imposed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)© fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot he levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. The computation of penalty with respect to the tax at Rs. 51,54,120/- is therefore contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the penalty imposed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)© fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot he levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. The computation of penalty with respect to the tax at Rs. 51,54,120/- is therefore contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the penalty imposed

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(1)(c) of the Act is leviable, we find no merit in the same. The facts on record point otherwise. Undoubtedly it was the assessee who had surrendered Rs.28 lacs during search. The surrender was never retracted by the assessee. Nothing to this effect is recorded in the orders of the authorities below nor has been brought

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

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

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 for assessee contended that this was a legal infirmity fatal to the imposition of penalty because in the absence of specifying

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

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 for assessee contended that this was a legal infirmity fatal to the imposition of penalty because in the absence of specifying

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

u/s 142(1) on five different occasions and out of the same, the assessee admittedly didn’t comply with the initial three notices, however, the latter two notices have been complied with as evident from the assessment order and therefore, the default is in terms of the non-compliance of the initial three notices. The explanation of the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the reply given vide letter dt. 30/05/2019 (copy of which is placed at page no. 16 & 17 of the assessee’s paper book) was as under: “F.No:DCIT/Circle6(1)/Mohali/2019-20/178 Dated: 30.05.2019 To Sh. Ramesh Dudani C-104, I.A., Phase-7, Mohali. Sir, Sub: Calculation in respect of penalty u/s 271

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

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the section 271AAB of the Act in the notice, it does not talk anything about the provisions of section 271AAB. Therefore, certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically' is not a correct notice in the eyes

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

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

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 36(1)(viia) rather it is on Performing assets from which regular return/income is being received by the assessee, as discussed above." 5.3 It is noted from the aforesaid observations that the claim of provision made on Performing assets amounting Rs. 2,21,28,000/-, was embedded by the appellant, in the overall claim of deduction made towards provision

SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Us Challenging The Levy Of Penalty Both On Legal Ground As Well As On Merits Of The Case :

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the departmental appeal on this issue has also no merit. The same is accordingly, dismissed.” 8. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and stated that since the ITAT Chandigarh Bench had upheld the disallowance on identical issue in the case of assessee