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

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

ANJALI SAINI,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO-WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(b) which is dated 15.07.2021 bearing a DIN including one dated 03.09.2021. That the Ld. AO vide DIN order no:- IBA/PNL/F/271(1)(b)/2021-2022/1038023701(1) dated 22.12.2021 wherein penalty has been imposed of Rs. 20,000/- in aggregate for non-compliance of notice dated 20.05.2019 (Rs.10,000) and notice dated 05.11.2022 (Rs.10,000). 11. That the assesse

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)

section 271 (1 )(b), the AO without verifying the record that each and every notice has been complied with, issued show cause notice, and imposed penalty by a non-speaking order on her whims and fancies. If we go through the order of the AO, she has reproduced her show cause notices in the order but has in a very

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

M/S HIMACHAL FASHION PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-6(3), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 8/Chd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

u/s Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. The ld. Counsel also submitted a case laws, i.e., ‘CIT Ahmedabad vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd’ [2010], 189 Taxman 322 (SC) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: - “A glance of provision of section 27I (1)(c ) would suggest that in order to be covered, there

INDER PAL SINGH LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED SATNAM SINGH 171789, STREET NO.8, GURU TEG BAHADUR JAGRAON,PUNJAB vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JAGRAON , PUNJAB

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

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

u/s 271 DA to the tune of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- on account of alleged violation of section 269ST. 2. That no proper or reasonable opportunity has been afforded to the appellant to represent the case since no notice was received on the email of assessee or on the email of his counsel or through physical mode. That

SURINDER SINGH RYAIT,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesse Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing Number: 09/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2017-18 Dt. 29/08/2019 Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2014 To 31/03/2015. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 That By An Order In First Appeal Bearing Number 09/It/Cit(A)- 5/Ldh/2017-18 Dt. 21/12/2018 The Ld. Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250(6) Of The Act Had Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Penalty Order Dt. 12/05/2017 Wherein Penalty Of Rs. 12,30,000/- Was Imposed On 2 The Assessee U/S 271Aab(1)(A). The 1St Appeal Of The Assessee Was Thus

Section 250(6) of the Act had allowed the appeal of the assessee against the penalty order dt. 12/05/2017 wherein penalty of Rs. 12,30,000/- was imposed on 2 the assessee u/s 271AAB(1)(a). The 1st appeal of the assessee was thus allowed. 2.2 That later on by the impugned order passed u/s

SH. JAGMOHAN SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

penalty of Rs. 13,13,910/- u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declared total income of Rs. 6,24,782/- on 31/03/2010. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. During

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. LEEFORD HEALTHCARE LTD., PUNJAB, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL .YADAV, VP &SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 549/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax बनाम Central Circle 3, Ludhiana Punjab Amit Kumar C/o Leeford Healthcare Ltd., LEO House, DugriDhadra Road, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं/ . PAN NO: ACBPK3657Q अपीलार्थी/ Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Cross Objection No. 23/Chd/2024 In (आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 549/Chd/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2

271 AAB of the Act? 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. CO No. 23/CHD/2024 (Assessee) 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground of appeal for levy of penalty

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB, LUDHIANA vs. AMIT KUMAR, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL .YADAV, VP &SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 549/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3, Ludhiana Punjab बनाम Amit Kumar C/o Leeford Healthcare Ltd., LEO House, DugriDhadra Road, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं/ . PAN NO: ACBPK3657Q अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Cross Objection No. 23/Chd/2024 In (आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 549/Chd/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 20

271 AAB of the Act? 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. CO No. 23/CHD/2024 (Assessee) 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground of appeal for levy of penalty

VASDEV,SANGRUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 144 r/w 147 of the Act. Separately, while passing the assessment order, the AO also recorded his satisfaction that the assessee has willfully concealed particulars of his income and therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were separately initiated and notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) dt. 28/12/2019 was issued and served on the assessee. Thereafter

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

12 We have perused the copy of the order u/s 273A which is dated 17.09.2014 and so also para 21 of ITAT order supra; which confirms this fact. 15. In para 5.1of the order passed u/s 273A, it has also "observations/finding of the been mentioned that Honorable Supreme Court is factually incorrect in as much as penalty was already

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

12 We have perused the copy of the order u/s 273A which is dated 17.09.2014 and so also para 21 of ITAT order supra; which confirms this fact. 15. In para 5.1of the order passed u/s 273A, it has also "observations/finding of the been mentioned that Honorable Supreme Court is factually incorrect in as much as penalty was already

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

12 We have perused the copy of the order u/s 273A which is dated 17.09.2014 and so also para 21 of ITAT order supra; which confirms this fact. 15. In para 5.1of the order passed u/s 273A, it has also "observations/finding of the been mentioned that Honorable Supreme Court is factually incorrect in as much as penalty was already

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

12 We have perused the copy of the order u/s 273A which is dated 17.09.2014 and so also para 21 of ITAT order supra; which confirms this fact. 15. In para 5.1of the order passed u/s 273A, it has also "observations/finding of the been mentioned that Honorable Supreme Court is factually incorrect in as much as penalty was already