DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

13. A perusal of the above provisions reveals sub section (3) to section 271AA of the Act bars the levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of undisclosed income referred to in sub section (1). The undisclosed income has also been defined under the provisions of section 271AAA

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

13. A perusal of the above provisions reveals sub section (3) to section 271AA of the Act bars the levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of undisclosed income referred to in sub section (1). The undisclosed income has also been defined under the provisions of section 271AAA

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

13. A perusal of the above provisions reveals sub section (3) to section 271AA of the Act bars the levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of undisclosed income referred to in sub section (1). The undisclosed income has also been defined under the provisions of section 271AAA

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

13. A perusal of the above provisions reveals sub section (3) to section 271AA of the Act bars the levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of undisclosed income referred to in sub section (1). The undisclosed income has also been defined under the provisions of section 271AAA

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

13. A perusal of the above provisions reveals sub section (3) to section 271AA of the Act bars the levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of undisclosed income referred to in sub section (1). The undisclosed income has also been defined under the provisions of section 271AAA

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The said additional ground was dismissed by the I.T.A.T. The I.T.A.T. thereafter also dealt with the merits of the case and held that the provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) were applicable in the present case since search was initiated after 1 s t June 2007, as prescribed

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

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

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

J. K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

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

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

section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(3) of the Act and the remaining addition is hereby directed to be deleted. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 685/Chd/2022 for A.Y. 2009-10 14. Connected to the aforesaid appeal for A.Y 2009-10, in this appeal, the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty

J.K.EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

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

section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(3) of the Act and the remaining addition is hereby directed to be deleted. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 685/Chd/2022 for A.Y. 2009-10 14. Connected to the aforesaid appeal for A.Y 2009-10, in this appeal, the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty

J.K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE-1,, CHANDIGARH

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

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

section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(3) of the Act and the remaining addition is hereby directed to be deleted. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 685/Chd/2022 for A.Y. 2009-10 14. Connected to the aforesaid appeal for A.Y 2009-10, in this appeal, the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty

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

13, reads as follows : ITA 398/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 7 9.1 The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty notice issued u/s 271AAB of the Act is not, in any manner, depicting the charge against the assessee as to under which clause, i.e., (a), (b) or (c) of Section 271AAB (1) or clause (a), or (b) of 271AAB

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)

13 & 2013-14 challenging the sustenance of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Since the common issues are involved in the both the above appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 3. With the consent of both the parties, the case of the Assessee in ITA No. 804/Chd/2023

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