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

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. 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

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. 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. 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

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, 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

271(1)(c) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 2. The facts relating to the case are that in the assessment framed on the assessee u/s 143(3) of the Act, an addition of A.Y. 2012-13 Page 2 of 18 Rs.14,87,66,159/- had been made on account of interest income

AKM RESORTS,MOHALI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 2.7 Basis above premises, the ld. AO concluded that assessee is liable to penal action on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and default has been committed by the assessee within the meaning of Section 271(1

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

M/S SEL TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, theappeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.695/Chd/2018 धििागरणवर्ग / Assessment Year :2014-15 बिाम M/S Sel Textiles Limited, The Dcit, 273-74,G.T. Road, Central Circle-Iii, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana Ludhiana स्थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aancs0401M अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent धििागररतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राजस्वकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh. Ram Mohan, Cit Dr सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2019 उदघोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2019 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg:

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