DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

15 totalling to. 75% tax u/s 115 BBE of the Act, apart from penalty u/s 271 AAC of the Act @ 10% w.e.f. 1.4.2017. Further, that a specific charge was levied by the Assessing officer in the penalty notice regarding the concealment of particulars of income and, as such, there was no defect in the notice. 10. We have heard

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

15 totalling to. 75% tax u/s 115 BBE of the Act, apart from penalty u/s 271 AAC of the Act @ 10% w.e.f. 1.4.2017. Further, that a specific charge was levied by the Assessing officer in the penalty notice regarding the concealment of particulars of income and, as such, there was no defect in the notice. 10. We have heard

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

15 totalling to. 75% tax u/s 115 BBE of the Act, apart from penalty u/s 271 AAC of the Act @ 10% w.e.f. 1.4.2017. Further, that a specific charge was levied by the Assessing officer in the penalty notice regarding the concealment of particulars of income and, as such, there was no defect in the notice. 10. We have heard

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

15 totalling to. 75% tax u/s 115 BBE of the Act, apart from penalty u/s 271 AAC of the Act @ 10% w.e.f. 1.4.2017. Further, that a specific charge was levied by the Assessing officer in the penalty notice regarding the concealment of particulars of income and, as such, there was no defect in the notice. 10. We have heard

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

15 totalling to. 75% tax u/s 115 BBE of the Act, apart from penalty u/s 271 AAC of the Act @ 10% w.e.f. 1.4.2017. Further, that a specific charge was levied by the Assessing officer in the penalty notice regarding the concealment of particulars of income and, as such, there was no defect in the notice. 10. We have heard

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)

u/s -------- --------------- issued on ---------------------- fixing the case for hearing on which was served on have concealed the particulars of your income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. 2. You are hereby requested to appear before me at 11.30AM on 26.12.2013 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section

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

u/s 80IC on foreign exchange fluctuation in case it is relatable to business receipts of revenue nature. The assessing officer in A.Y. 2010-11 has not levied penalty on this issue. Considering these facts, the A.O. is accordingly is directed to delete the penalty levied on the addition made on account of the foreign exchange fluctuation. 14. From the above

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

u/s 80IC on foreign exchange fluctuation in case it is relatable to business receipts of revenue nature. The assessing officer in A.Y. 2010-11 has not levied penalty on this issue. Considering these facts, the A.O. is accordingly is directed to delete the penalty levied on the addition made on account of the foreign exchange fluctuation. 14. From the above

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

section 271(1)(b) of the Act, then, the Hon'ble High Court has held, that the notice should clearly reflect the exact ground for which penalty is levied. The Hon’ble High Court has in very clear words explained that the proceedings being penal in nature the assessee should be made aware of the grounds on which penalty

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

section 271(1)(b) of the Act, then, the Hon'ble High Court has held, that the notice should clearly reflect the exact ground for which penalty is levied. The Hon’ble High Court has in very clear words explained that the proceedings being penal in nature the assessee should be made aware of the grounds on which penalty

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

15 and the A.O. herself dropped the penalty on the addition of Rs. 1,40,955/-, the only addition which remained intact for the purposes of levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was Rs. 81,072/- . On the said addition the A.O. levied penalty of Rs. 17,242/-. However when the information was sought

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

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act for the concealment of incom.e or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB of the Act in the notice it does not talk anything about the provision of section 271 AAB. Certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically is not a correct notice in the eyes

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)

Section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature.” 14. In light of aforesaid discussions and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the decision supra, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby directed to be deleted. 15

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

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

SH. PAWAN SAHNI,SOLAN vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 AAA is not leviable.” 12. The Ld. counsel for assessee, therefore, contended that the assessee having complied with all the conditions specified for grant of immunity u/s 271AAA sub-section (2) of the Act and the CIT(A) having himself deleted the penalty levied in identical circumstances in the case of other assessees of the same group

ANJALI SAINI,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO-WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

15. That appellant has also filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order of penalty imposed under section 271(c) for AY 2012-2013. The notice of hearing for this appeal against penalty under section 271(1) (c) dated 17.08.2023 was received by the assesse on her email id anjalisaini2510@gmail.comas was mentioned in the FORM