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

SH. S.L. ARORA,MOHALI vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied pursuant to the aforesaid quantum additions. I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010 I.T.A. No.274,275/CHANDI/2014 Shri Rajiv Kumar Shri Sohan Lal Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. So far as the appeal agitating the quantum additions are concerned, the assessees apart from contesting the additions on merits, have taken the following additional

SH. RAJIV KUMAR,MOHALI vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied pursuant to the aforesaid quantum additions. I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010 I.T.A. No.274,275/CHANDI/2014 Shri Rajiv Kumar Shri Sohan Lal Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. So far as the appeal agitating the quantum additions are concerned, the assessees apart from contesting the additions on merits, have taken the following additional

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. S.L. ARORA, MOHALI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied pursuant to the aforesaid quantum additions. I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010 I.T.A. No.274,275/CHANDI/2014 Shri Rajiv Kumar Shri Sohan Lal Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. So far as the appeal agitating the quantum additions are concerned, the assessees apart from contesting the additions on merits, have taken the following additional

SH.SOHAN LAL ARORA,MOHALI vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied pursuant to the aforesaid quantum additions. I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010 I.T.A. No.274,275/CHANDI/2014 Shri Rajiv Kumar Shri Sohan Lal Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. So far as the appeal agitating the quantum additions are concerned, the assessees apart from contesting the additions on merits, have taken the following additional

SH. RAJIV KUMAR,MOHALI vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied pursuant to the aforesaid quantum additions. I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010 I.T.A. No.274,275/CHANDI/2014 Shri Rajiv Kumar Shri Sohan Lal Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. So far as the appeal agitating the quantum additions are concerned, the assessees apart from contesting the additions on merits, have taken the following additional

SH. AMAN SETH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty notice u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Being aggrieved by the AO order dt. 10/02/2015 (supra) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who by an order dt. 05/06/2017 has sustained the additions. 7. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A) dt. 05/06/2017 has preferred

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the l.T.Act,1961 are initiated separately on the above issue. (Addition of Rs.94,75,428/-) 6.1 The Ld. CIT DR carrying us through the specific paras of the impugned order wherein relief has been granted by the CIT-A challenged by the Revenue in the present proceeding assailed the finding stating that relief has been

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the l.T.Act,1961 are initiated separately on the above issue. (Addition of Rs.94,75,428/-) 6.1 The Ld. CIT DR carrying us through the specific paras of the impugned order wherein relief has been granted by the CIT-A challenged by the Revenue in the present proceeding assailed the finding stating that relief has been

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

271(1) (b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was also issued vide letter No.763 dated 17.8.2009 for non-furnishing of information. In all these cases, hearing was fixed on 19.8.2009. On this date, the assessee furnished reply, vide letter dated 17.8.2009 of its CA, Sh.Manoj Gupta vide which it furnished some of the addresses of the account holders

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

271(1) (b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was also issued vide letter No.763 dated 17.8.2009 for non-furnishing of information. In all these cases, hearing was fixed on 19.8.2009. On this date, the assessee furnished reply, vide letter dated 17.8.2009 of its CA, Sh.Manoj Gupta vide which it furnished some of the addresses of the account holders

JAGJIT SINGH ,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, PATIALA , PATIALA

In the result we set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the file of Ld

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058720011(1) Dt. 13/12/2023 Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-12 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2010 To 31/03/2011. 2. Factual Matrix

271(1)(b) Opportunity letter 04 06.2018 11 06.2018 -do- Show cause to penalty u/s 22 06 2018 28 06.2018 -do- 27l(1)(b) Notice u/s 142(1) 19.07.2018 26.07.2018 -do- Notice u/s 142(1) 06.08.2018 13.08.2018 -do- Notice u/s 142(1) 06.09.2018 12.09.2018 -do- Show cause notice 19.09.2018 27.09.2018 -do- Opportunity letter 22 10.2018 26.10.2018 -do- ! 2.5 That

BEE GEE CONSTRUCTION CO,ZIRAKPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-3(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

125 Taxmann.com 82) confirming the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (reported as 122 Taxmann.com 123). The adjudication of Hon’ble High Court was as under: - 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of order under challenge, it would clearly indicate that claim of the assessee was under section

BEE GEE CONSTRUCTION CO,ZIRAKPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

125 Taxmann.com 82) confirming the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (reported as 122 Taxmann.com 123). The adjudication of Hon’ble High Court was as under: - 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of order under challenge, it would clearly indicate that claim of the assessee was under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is premature in nature. ITA No.992 & 993/CHD/2024 & CO 46 & 45/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18 & 2016-17 14 5.5 Ground of Appeal No. 7 is consequential in nature. 5.6 Ground of Appeal No. 8 has not been argued by the AR during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. In the result

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections\nare dismissed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 which is premature in nature.\n5.5 Ground of Appeal No. 7 is consequential in nature.\n5.6 Ground of Appeal No. 8 has not been argued by the AR during the course of\nappellate proceedings.\n6. In the result the appeal is allowed on factual grounds.”\n11. Before

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

SMT. JAGJIT KAUR CHAWLA,MOHALI vs. DCIT, MOHALI

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

Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT (A) was not justified in confirming the action of Ld. AO of addition of Rs. 5,90,976/- u/s 36(l)(iii) in respect of following parties with respective average daily balances : Name of the Party Average daily

SSMT. CHARU AGGARWAL,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB are being initiated on this undisclosed income. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A)and furnished the written submissions which are incorporated in para 3 of the impugned order and read as under: "“Sub: Written Submission in the case of M/s. Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, House No. 123C, Model Town, Patiala