DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

5. Being aggrieved by the identical penalties levied by the Assessing officer for different assessment years, the assessees preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) considering ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 7 the submissions of the assessees deleted the penalty / penalties

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

5. Being aggrieved by the identical penalties levied by the Assessing officer for different assessment years, the assessees preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) considering ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 7 the submissions of the assessees deleted the penalty / penalties

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

5. Being aggrieved by the identical penalties levied by the Assessing officer for different assessment years, the assessees preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) considering ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 7 the submissions of the assessees deleted the penalty / penalties

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

5. Being aggrieved by the identical penalties levied by the Assessing officer for different assessment years, the assessees preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) considering ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 7 the submissions of the assessees deleted the penalty / penalties

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

5. Being aggrieved by the identical penalties levied by the Assessing officer for different assessment years, the assessees preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) considering ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 7 the submissions of the assessees deleted the penalty / penalties

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)

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153 of the Act. The assessee has declared undisclosed income, in the return filed- in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act and the CIT(Appeals), having regard to the facts of the case, invoked the currently applicable Explanation 5A Section 271(1) (c) of the Act and upheld the penalty, levied

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

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153 of the Act. The assessee has declared undisclosed income, in the return filed- in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act and the CIT(Appeals), having regard to the facts of the case, invoked the currently applicable Explanation 5A Section 271(1) (c) of the Act and upheld the penalty, levied

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

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153 of the Act. The assessee has declared undisclosed income, in the return filed- in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act and the CIT(Appeals), having regard to the facts of the case, invoked the currently applicable Explanation 5A Section 271(1) (c) of the Act and upheld the penalty, levied

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

u/s 271 AAB of the Act is vague and the assessee was not made aware of the actual charge on which the penalty proceedings will be initiated on the assessee. The various judicial precedents, as ITA 398/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 8 discussed in the following paras have held that the penalty notice should be clear enough to convey

BALWINDER SINGH,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SUNAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

5. Against the said findings and the direction of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO has imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000/-vide order u/s 271F dated 19-06-2019 for non-filing the return of income

SH. DIPTI LAL,MORINDA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms.Annapurna Guptash. Dipti Lal, Vs. The D.C.I.T., Goldsmith, Purana Bazar, Investigation Circle 2(1), Morinda. Chandigarh. Pan: - (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the Act, being satisfied that the assessee was deemed to have concealed particulars of his income as per Explanation 5 to the section, since he had failed to file return u/s 139

PALACE INFRATECH PVT LTD,LUDHIANA vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.

5) read with section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act and paid the due taxes. It has, therefore, been pleaded that it is not a case of levy of any penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. Further, at the most the penalty can be levied u/s 271AAB(1) of the Act @ 10% of the undisclosed income and not u/s

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

139 or section 153(1)) and no notice under sections 142(1) or 148 is issued to him till the expiry of the said period, he will be treated to have concealed his income and penalty will be leviable on him accordingly if he is later found to have had taxable income in that year. Thus, for the purpose

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

139 or section 153(1)) and no notice under sections 142(1) or 148 is issued to him till the expiry of the said period, he will be treated to have concealed his income and penalty will be leviable on him accordingly if he is later found to have had taxable income in that year. Thus, for the purpose

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

139 or section 153(1)) and no notice under sections 142(1) or 148 is issued to him till the expiry of the said period, he will be treated to have concealed his income and penalty will be leviable on him accordingly if he is later found to have had taxable income in that year. Thus, for the purpose

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

139 or section 153(1)) and no notice under sections 142(1) or 148 is issued to him till the expiry of the said period, he will be treated to have concealed his income and penalty will be leviable on him accordingly if he is later found to have had taxable income in that year. Thus, for the purpose

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

139 or section 153(1)) and no notice under sections 142(1) or 148 is issued to him till the expiry of the said period, he will be treated to have concealed his income and penalty will be leviable on him accordingly if he is later found to have had taxable income in that year. Thus, for the purpose

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

139 or section 153(1)) and no notice under sections 142(1) or 148 is issued to him till the expiry of the said period, he will be treated to have concealed his income and penalty will be leviable on him accordingly if he is later found to have had taxable income in that year. Thus, for the purpose