DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a case of deemed tax sought to be evaded whereupon the Assessing officer rightly levied the impugned penalty. Moreover, there was no evidence produced by the assessees to prove that the income undisclosed in the returns of income was earned in that particular year. That the onus was on the assessees

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a case of deemed tax sought to be evaded whereupon the Assessing officer rightly levied the impugned penalty. Moreover, there was no evidence produced by the assessees to prove that the income undisclosed in the returns of income was earned in that particular year. That the onus was on the assessees

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a case of deemed tax sought to be evaded whereupon the Assessing officer rightly levied the impugned penalty. Moreover, there was no evidence produced by the assessees to prove that the income undisclosed in the returns of income was earned in that particular year. That the onus was on the assessees

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a case of deemed tax sought to be evaded whereupon the Assessing officer rightly levied the impugned penalty. Moreover, there was no evidence produced by the assessees to prove that the income undisclosed in the returns of income was earned in that particular year. That the onus was on the assessees

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a case of deemed tax sought to be evaded whereupon the Assessing officer rightly levied the impugned penalty. Moreover, there was no evidence produced by the assessees to prove that the income undisclosed in the returns of income was earned in that particular year. That the onus was on the assessees

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

section 271(1)(c) levied upon the assessee on incorrect claim for deduction was not justifiable as the same was on account of change of law and therefore, a matter of bona fide mistake..,.. (iii) Shree Krishna Electricals 2009-23 VST249 (SC) Penalty cannot be levied merely because exemption claimed by 'A'was disallowed. (iv) The Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

section 271(1)(c) levied upon the assessee on incorrect claim for deduction was not justifiable as the same was on account of change of law and therefore, a matter of bona fide mistake..,.. (iii) Shree Krishna Electricals 2009-23 VST249 (SC) Penalty cannot be levied merely because exemption claimed by 'A'was disallowed. (iv) The Hon'ble Supreme Court

JARNAIL SINGH GILL,JAGRAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JAGRAON

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

Bench: The Tribunal & The Matter Was Remanded Back To Ao For Fresh Adjudication. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed

143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty imposed is restricted to Rs. 10,000/- as against Rs. 50,000/- confirmed by the learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal of the assessee are-thus partly allowed.” 8. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of the Coordinate Jaipur Benches in case of Sandeep Verma

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR GOYAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 226/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Dcit, Shri Krishan Kumar Goyal, बनाम Central Circle-1, Prop Sagar Enterprise, Chandigarh Scf 153, Sector 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Agipk9063H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 456/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Dcit, Shri Krishan Kumar Goyal, बनाम Central Circle-1, Prop Sagar Enterprise, Chandigarh Scf 153, Sector 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Agipk9063H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

143(1) and it was a mere intimation hence, the AO had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and it was open to the AO to reassess the income u/s. 153A, even without any incriminating material found during the search action, is not tenable. 12. The learned DR has further relied on the judgment

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR GOYAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 226/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Dcit, Shri Krishan Kumar Goyal, बनाम Central Circle-1, Prop Sagar Enterprise, Chandigarh Scf 153, Sector 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Agipk9063H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 456/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Dcit, Shri Krishan Kumar Goyal, बनाम Central Circle-1, Prop Sagar Enterprise, Chandigarh Scf 153, Sector 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Agipk9063H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

143(1) and it was a mere intimation hence, the AO had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and it was open to the AO to reassess the income u/s. 153A, even without any incriminating material found during the search action, is not tenable. 12. The learned DR has further relied on the judgment

M/S APEEJAY EDUCATION SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

143(3) for the has been unrelentingly non-compliant A.Y. 2012-13 which was and has only resorted to making provided on the same day. baseless allegations. There has only been deliberate noncompliance of W.r.t. the opportunity heard notice u/s 142(1) dated 30.08.2019." regarding penalty u/s 271(1)(b), the assessee vide A show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s

SH RAMESH KUMAR DUDANI,MOHALI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE -6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

143(3) of the Act made three addition i.e; Rs. 81,072/- on account of less income shown under the head “income from other sources,” Rs. 3,15,213/- on account of excess depreciation and Rs. 1,40,955/- on account of disallowance of Foreign Travelling Expenses. Out of the aforesaid additions, the addition

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

143(3) of the I.T Act, 1961 on 29.12.2017 and income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.3,88,23,170/- after making the addition of Rs.88,86,872/- on account of undisclosed investment in stock. During the search operation, physical stock was taken and stock was found to be excess by Rs.1.20 Crores. The statement of Sh. Sanjeev Garg

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)

143(3) dt. 05/03/2014 wherein the AO has, interalia, made a disallowance of provision made towards standard assets amounting to Rs. 2,21,28,000/- and separately, the penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by issuing a notice dt. 05/03/2014 under section 274 r.w.s

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

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

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

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of section 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation:--- For the purpose of this section,__ (a)……… (b)………. (c) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income