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

271(1)(c) were also initiated w.r.t. all the above referred restriction in deduction claimed and disallowances made. The issues on which penalty levied is as under:- Amount of addition on which penalty Issues where penalty proceedings proceedings initiated initiated 8m A.Y. claim of deduction u/s 80IC Rs.7,36,16,042/- Other income Rs.21,84,505/- U/s 14A Rs.5

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)

u/s 36(1)(viia) rather it is on Performing assets from which regular return/income is being received by the assessee, as discussed above." 5.3 It is noted from the aforesaid observations that the claim of provision made on Performing assets amounting Rs. 2,21,28,000/-, was embedded by the appellant, in the overall claim of deduction made towards provision

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(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

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

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

271(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

M/S MAHARAJA LIGHT & TENT SERVICES,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

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

271(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

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(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the “undisclosed income” term/expression has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

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

u/s 36(1)(viia) rather it is on Performing assets from which regular\nreturn/income is being received by the assessee, as discussed above.\"\n5.3 It is noted from the aforesaid observations that the claim of provision\nmade on Performing assets amounting Rs.2,21,28,000/-, was embedded by the\nappellant, in the overall claim of deduction made towards provision

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under Section 14A of the Act was a debatable issue. We may also note that against the quantum assessment where under deduction under Section 14A of the Act was prescribed to the assessee, the assessee has preferred an appeal in this Court under

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under Section 14A of the Act was a debatable issue. We may also note that against the quantum assessment where under deduction under Section 14A of the Act was prescribed to the assessee, the assessee has preferred an appeal in this Court under

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under Section 14A of the Act was a debatable issue. We may also note that against the quantum assessment where under deduction under Section 14A of the Act was prescribed to the assessee, the assessee has preferred an appeal in this Court under

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under Section 14A of the Act was a debatable issue. We may also note that against the quantum assessment where under deduction under Section 14A of the Act was prescribed to the assessee, the assessee has preferred an appeal in this Court under

RAJBIR SINGH WALIA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ITA 59/CHD/2015 is partly allowed and ITA

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act consequent to the additions made in quantum proceedings vide his order dated 27.02.2018. Since both the issues are inter-related, they were therefore taken up together for hearing. ITA - 59/CHD/2015 & ITA -413/CHD/2018 Page 2 of 9 2. We shall first be dealing in the assessee's appeal in quantum proceedings

RAJBIR SINGH WALIA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-I(I), CHANDIGARH

In the result, ITA 59/CHD/2015 is partly allowed and ITA

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act consequent to the additions made in quantum proceedings vide his order dated 27.02.2018. Since both the issues are inter-related, they were therefore taken up together for hearing. ITA - 59/CHD/2015 & ITA -413/CHD/2018 Page 2 of 9 2. We shall first be dealing in the assessee's appeal in quantum proceedings

THE SHAHABAD COOP. SUGAR MILLS,SHAHABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, KURUKSHETRA

Bench: Us In Terms Of Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 11/03/2018 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order, Before This Tribunal In Form No. 36 Has Interalia Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act are attracted in this case for which penalty proceedings are initiated separately." The submissions made by the appellant have been clearly controverted by the A.O. in arriving at his conclusion. In the circumstances, I consider that the addition has been correctly made and confirm the same. This ground of appeal is dismissed

DCIT, C-5, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the Cross

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as discussed above. D) Disallowance of Interest u/s 36(l)(iii) on Share Application Money:- On the details has submitted by the assessee regarding investments it is seen that the assessee has invested certain sum of its money as mentioned below under the head share

M/S SABER PAPER BOARD PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2013-14 respectively passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-5 Ludhiana. 2. Since the issues involved are common and the appeals were heard together, so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake

M/S SABER PAPER LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2013-14 respectively passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-5 Ludhiana. 2. Since the issues involved are common and the appeals were heard together, so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake

M/S RELIANT INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

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

Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO wherein he had not allowed the prayer of the appellant made during assessment to reduce the erroneously made suo-motto disallowance of Rs.66,91,000/- made u/s 14A

PUNJAB CHEMICALS & CROP. PROTECTION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

section 36(1)(iii). This being allowable as business expenditure, the disallowance made on this account be deleted. 2. As per the facts and circumstance of the case and as per the provisions of law, the pispute Resolution Panel has erred in its directions, and the assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs. 40,12,319/- u/s 14A