SMT. SHWETA JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

271(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

MANPREET SINGH BHULLAR,PARWANOO vs. ITO, PARWANOO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

133 DTR 223 (Kam.)(HC), it has been held that -Quantum appeal is admitted by High Court on substantial question of law hence addition itself becomes debatable, hence the levy of penalty was held to be not justified. [S. 54, 54F, 260A] The Assessee claimed deduction under section 54 against sale of commercial building which was denied

M/S BRAHMA STEYR TRACTORS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-1(2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.200/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15

271(1)(c) of the Act on account of the assessee having furnished any inaccurate particulars of income or having concealed any particulars of income. It was stated that the addition had been wrongly made under the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act and the penalty proceedings being distinct and separate from assessment 4 A.Y. 2014-15 proceedings

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)

section 133(6) the party denied to had any transaction or job work done for the assessee. 8 Sonu Rs.49,775/- Cash Letter issued u/s 133(6) received unserved Engineering Works with the remarks of the post man that "no such person existing at the given address." Above facts were confronted to the assesseee for his comments and explanation

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)

section 133(6) the party denied to had any transaction or job work done for the assessee. 8 Sonu Rs.49,775/- Cash Letter issued u/s 133(6) received unserved Engineering Works with the remarks of the post man that "no such person existing at the given address." Above facts were confronted to the assesseee for his comments and explanation

DINESH VERMA,MANALI, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ITO, ITO WARD KULLU

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

u/s 270A of the Act after following due procedure laid down and to take consequential action. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer had examined the matter and therefore the revision under section 263 was invalid. It was contended that

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

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)

penalty of Rs. 12,386/- under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee did not file any original return of income within the time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. Thereafter, basis information that the assessee had made certain payments amounting

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. 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

JAGROOP SINGH,BARNALA vs. ITO, W-1, BARNALA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is treated as dismissed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105946628(1) Dt. 08/01/2024 Passed By The Cit(A) Under Section 250(6) Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant A.Y. Is 2012-13 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2011 To 31/03/2012. 2. Factual Matrix

133(6) of the IT. Act, 1961 was called for from Punjab National Bank and placed on record. 2.5 Further, notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 18-07-2019 alongwith questionnaire calling for some information were issued. The assessee was required

M/S MRS. BECTOR FOOD SPECIALITIES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07

133/- u/s 36(1)(iii) on amount Invested in the purchase of property 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has ignored the fact that no penalty was leviable as all the facts stood disclosed and there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3. That the Learned CIT(A) has ignored the fact that the statutory notice issued u/s

AMARJEET BEETON HUF,DHURI vs. ACIT, C-4, LUDHIANA

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumaramarjeet Beeton(Huf) Vs. The Asstt. Ci T Prop. M/S Shiva Udyog, Circle-4 House No. 210, Ward No. 10-B Ludhiana Shivpuri Mohalla, Dhuri

133(6) from Smt Anita Sharma which according to the AO was not replied The assessee surrendered Rs. 200000/- as income to avoid litigation with the department. The Ld. Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 200000/- on account of this surrender and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) and subsequently levied penalty of Rs.66

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)

133/- Accepted u/s 143(3) 2011-12 9,50,400/- 29,74,253/- 39,24,653/- Accepted u/s 143(3) 2012-13 12,67,200/- 25,00,000/- 37,67,200/- Accepted u/s 143(3) 2013-14 14,57,280/- 25,00,000/- 39,57,280/- Accepted by ITAT [Refer Page

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)

133/- Accepted u/s 143(3) 2011-12 9,50,400/- 29,74,253/- 39,24,653/- Accepted u/s 143(3) 2012-13 12,67,200/- 25,00,000/- 37,67,200/- Accepted u/s 143(3) 2013-14 14,57,280/- 25,00,000/- 39,57,280/- Accepted by ITAT [Refer Page

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)

133/- Accepted u/s 143(3) 2011-12 9,50,400/- 29,74,253/- 39,24,653/- Accepted u/s 143(3) 2012-13 12,67,200/- 25,00,000/- 37,67,200/- Accepted u/s 143(3) 2013-14 14,57,280/- 25,00,000/- 39,57,280/- Accepted by ITAT [Refer Page

TARA HEALTH FOODS LIMITED,MALERKOTLA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, ITA No.1036/CHD/2013 is partly allowed, whereas ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1036/Chd/2013 & Ita 754/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Tara Health Foods Ltd., Vs The Dcit, Village Jitwal Kalan, Central Circle-1, Tehsil – Malerkotla. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacct3940R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Ms.Deepali Aggarwal,Ca Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

Section 153A of the Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal i.e. ITA No.1036/CHD/2013. The assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal, however, its grievance revolves around three fold of issues. In the first ground of appeal, assessee has pleaded that ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the determination of income at Rs.31,77,60,505/- as against

TARA HEALTH FOODS LTD.,MALERKOTLA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, ITA No.1036/CHD/2013 is partly allowed, whereas ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1036/Chd/2013 & Ita 754/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Tara Health Foods Ltd., Vs The Dcit, Village Jitwal Kalan, Central Circle-1, Tehsil – Malerkotla. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacct3940R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Ms.Deepali Aggarwal,Ca Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

Section 153A of the Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal i.e. ITA No.1036/CHD/2013. The assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal, however, its grievance revolves around three fold of issues. In the first ground of appeal, assessee has pleaded that ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the determination of income at Rs.31,77,60,505/- as against