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

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. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY ,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

PAWAN GARG,PANCHKULA vs. ITO WARD 5((5) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1218/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pawan Garg, The Ito, House No. 766, Sector 16, Vs Ward 5(5), Panchkula. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abmpg4243N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026

120 Total income : 65,24,960 A.Y.2014-15 4 After considering the facts of the case, assessment is completed on a total income of Rs.65,24,960/-. Charge interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D as per the provisions of IT. Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271F for non-filing of ITR in respect to the notice u/s

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

120 ITR 593 (vi) Sohan Singh Vs CIT (Del) 158 ITR 174 (vii) Rattan Gupta Vs CIT (P&H) 234 ITR 220 Similarly, information received from other agencies like CIB, Enforcement Directorate or from other Assessing Officers constitute material for reopening of assessment and notice issued u/s 148 in these circumstances is also valid. Reliance in this regard is placed

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

120 ITR 593 (vi) Sohan Singh Vs CIT (Del) 158 ITR 174 (vii) Rattan Gupta Vs CIT (P&H) 234 ITR 220 Similarly, information received from other agencies like CIB, Enforcement Directorate or from other Assessing Officers constitute material for reopening of assessment and notice issued u/s 148 in these circumstances is also valid. Reliance in this regard is placed

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR BATRA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-3(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 120 & 121/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Shri Vijay Kumar Batra, The Acit, बनाम Circle 3(1), Prop M/S Adley Foundations, Chandigarh Sco 184, Sector 5,Panchkula Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aejpb0879B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

B’ CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ीमती अ"नपूणा" गु"ता, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 120 & 121/CHD/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Shri Vijay Kumar Batra, The ACIT, बनाम Circle 3(1), Prop M/s Adley Foundations, Chandigarh

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR BATRA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-3(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 120 & 121/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Shri Vijay Kumar Batra, The Acit, बनाम Circle 3(1), Prop M/S Adley Foundations, Chandigarh Sco 184, Sector 5,Panchkula Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aejpb0879B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

B’ CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ीमती अ"नपूणा" गु"ता, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 120 & 121/CHD/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Shri Vijay Kumar Batra, The ACIT, बनाम Circle 3(1), Prop M/s Adley Foundations, Chandigarh

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S PALACE JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

271 AAB of the income tax act, 1961 on account of any item of jewellery/cash and/or any addition as may be liable to be made on account of profits earned/investment made in some unrecorded transactions as may be later adjudged, opined, considered to be in excess of what already stood recorded in the books regularly maintained as had been shown

PALACE JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

271 AAB of the income tax act, 1961 on account of any item of jewellery/cash and/or any addition as may be liable to be made on account of profits earned/investment made in some unrecorded transactions as may be later adjudged, opined, considered to be in excess of what already stood recorded in the books regularly maintained as had been shown

SH. BALWAN SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

4), Chandigarh. Any objection to the jurisdiction of an assessing officer can be raised as provided under section 124(3) of the Act. Sub clause (b) of the said section states that where no return has been made u/s 139(1) of the Act or in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, the objection can be made

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)

Penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AR has also submitted that the addition in the partner's capita! account of Rs. 50 lacs should be considered as explained under the unaccounted sales transactions of Rs. 42.80 lacs in the impounded documents and other discrepancies of Rs. 7.2 lacs found during the course

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, 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