DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

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

1 (iii) to Section 153 (3) of the Act was not available to the Assessing Officer because of an invalid order under Section 142 (2A) of the Act. Thus, a careful reading of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm) (Supra) would reveal that the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically

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

1 (iii) to Section 153 (3) of the Act was not available to the Assessing Officer because of an invalid order under Section 142 (2A) of the Act. Thus, a careful reading of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm) (Supra) would reveal that the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically

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

1 (iii) to Section 153 (3) of the Act was not available to the Assessing Officer because of an invalid order under Section 142 (2A) of the Act. Thus, a careful reading of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm) (Supra) would reveal that the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically

SH. RAJIV KUMAR,MOHALI vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

1 (iii) to Section 153 (3) of the Act was not available to the Assessing Officer because of an invalid order under Section 142 (2A) of the Act. Thus, a careful reading of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm) (Supra) would reveal that the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically

SH. RAJIV KUMAR,MOHALI vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

1 (iii) to Section 153 (3) of the Act was not available to the Assessing Officer because of an invalid order under Section 142 (2A) of the Act. Thus, a careful reading of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm) (Supra) would reveal that the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

u/s 263 of the Act relating to assessment year 2011-12 on identical issue of levy of penalty for such year, which the AO had not levied ,on account of which the Ld.CIT had held the order to be erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, referring to the said order ,stated that for the said

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

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

142(1) or section 148 of the Act till the expiry of the eighteen month, period; and lastly, the concerned officer is satisfied that in respect of such assessment year, such person had taxable income. In such cases, Explanation 3 provides that such person shall be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income within the meaning of clause

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

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

142(1) or section 148 of the Act till the expiry of the eighteen month, period; and lastly, the concerned officer is satisfied that in respect of such assessment year, such person had taxable income. In such cases, Explanation 3 provides that such person shall be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income within the meaning of clause

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

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

142(1) or section 148 of the Act till the expiry of the eighteen month, period; and lastly, the concerned officer is satisfied that in respect of such assessment year, such person had taxable income. In such cases, Explanation 3 provides that such person shall be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income within the meaning of clause

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

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

142(1) or section 148 of the Act till the expiry of the eighteen month, period; and lastly, the concerned officer is satisfied that in respect of such assessment year, such person had taxable income. In such cases, Explanation 3 provides that such person shall be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income within the meaning of clause

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

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

142(1) or section 148 of the Act till the expiry of the eighteen month, period; and lastly, the concerned officer is satisfied that in respect of such assessment year, such person had taxable income. In such cases, Explanation 3 provides that such person shall be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income within the meaning of clause

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

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

142(1) or section 148 of the Act till the expiry of the eighteen month, period; and lastly, the concerned officer is satisfied that in respect of such assessment year, such person had taxable income. In such cases, Explanation 3 provides that such person shall be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income within the meaning of clause

SMT. SUREKHA THUKRAL ,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1) (c) in respect of addition to the income against the amount offered by the assessee under agreement with Assessing Officer that amount is being surrendered to buy the peace of mind if Assessing Officer agrees not to initiate any penalty proceeding. 6. That assessee prays to your honor for permission to take any additional ground before