THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,NAHAN vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was carried out on 24.4.2008 and during the survey, it was noticed that the assessee has not collected TCS in respect of Toll Tax Barriers as per provisions of Section 206(1C) of the Act. Thereafter, after issuing a show cause to the assessee, the AO passed an order

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,NAHAN vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was carried out on 24.4.2008 and during the survey, it was noticed that the assessee has not collected TCS in respect of Toll Tax Barriers as per provisions of Section 206(1C) of the Act. Thereafter, after issuing a show cause to the assessee, the AO passed an order

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,SHIMLA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was carried out on 24.4.2008 and during the survey, it was noticed that the assessee has not collected TCS in respect of Toll Tax Barriers as per provisions of Section 206(1C) of the Act. Thereafter, after issuing a show cause to the assessee, the AO passed an order

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HIMALAYAN EXPRESSWAY LTD., PINJORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T.Act: 1. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors T(2007) 295 ITR 2441 AS RELIED UPON BY THE AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability

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

M/S GANESH BUILDERS,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) in respect of income enhanced by him in the appellate order. 9. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.” 3. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee firm has also moved

M/S LUXMI BUILDERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) in respect of income enhanced by him in the appellate order. 9. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.” 3. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee firm has also moved

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

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

133A conducted on 04.03.2015 led to an additional income declaration of Rs. 1,25,00,000/-. The AO noted this income might have remained undisclosed without the survey and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment. 4. After reviewing the necessary details, the Assessing Officer assessed the assessee’s total income

M/S HOTEL OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY,CHAMBA vs. ITO, BANIKHET

In the result this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 772/Chd/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(b) without appreciating written submissions made. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed action of ITO in adopting status of assessee firm as AOP without ITA Nos. 772-c-12, 485-c-17 & 496-c-18- M/s Oak Valley Residency, Chamba 3 appreciating written submissions made in this regard. 6. That the learned

M/S OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY,DALHOUISE vs. ITO, DALHOUSIE AT, BANIKHET

In the result this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 772/Chd/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(b) without appreciating written submissions made. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed action of ITO in adopting status of assessee firm as AOP without ITA Nos. 772-c-12, 485-c-17 & 496-c-18- M/s Oak Valley Residency, Chamba 3 appreciating written submissions made in this regard. 6. That the learned

M/S OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY,DALHOUSIE vs. ITO, BANIKHET

In the result this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 772/Chd/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(b) without appreciating written submissions made. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed action of ITO in adopting status of assessee firm as AOP without ITA Nos. 772-c-12, 485-c-17 & 496-c-18- M/s Oak Valley Residency, Chamba 3 appreciating written submissions made in this regard. 6. That the learned

ACIT, C-6, LUDHIANA vs. M/S ARADHANA FABRICS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

133A of the Income Tax Act and addition of Rs.3,50,000/- on account of unexplained share premium. By virtue of order dated 28.09.2015, passed u/s 271(1)(c)of the Income Tax Act, the AO imposed a penalty of Rs.68,14,577/- on the assessee, holding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income amounting to Rs.2

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)

u/s 133A of the IT Act to find out the true facts of the case when there was no compliance and cooperation on the part of the assessee to prove its primary onus. And on the basis of survey only true facts of the case were ascertained which helped in ascertaining the factual reality. The assessing office collected information u/s

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)

u/s 133A of the IT Act to find out the true facts of the case when there was no compliance and cooperation on the part of the assessee to prove its primary onus. And on the basis of survey only true facts of the case were ascertained which helped in ascertaining the factual reality. The assessing office collected information u/s

SMT. JYOTI JAIN,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessees are allowed for

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1074/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Lalit Jain The Assistant Commissioner बनाम S.C.O. 371-372, 2Nd Floor, Of Income Tax Circle-4(1), Sector-35B, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No : Aaupj 0091Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

133A of the Act ,where certain evidences relating to the claim of Long Term Capital Gains allegedly being bogus were unearthed ,the assessee surrendered the Long Term Capital Gains as its income by way of filing a revised return declaring an amount of Rs.71,91,150/- in the case of Shri. Lalit Jain and 56,58,000/- in the case

SH. LALIT JAIN,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessees are allowed for

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1074/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Lalit Jain The Assistant Commissioner बनाम S.C.O. 371-372, 2Nd Floor, Of Income Tax Circle-4(1), Sector-35B, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No : Aaupj 0091Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

133A of the Act ,where certain evidences relating to the claim of Long Term Capital Gains allegedly being bogus were unearthed ,the assessee surrendered the Long Term Capital Gains as its income by way of filing a revised return declaring an amount of Rs.71,91,150/- in the case of Shri. Lalit Jain and 56,58,000/- in the case