DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

271 | 94 | Non-Resident |\n| | 10-08-2016 | 16-12-2016 | 127 | | | |\n| | 07-01-2017 | 31.03.2017 | 83 | | | |\n| 2017-18 | 01.04.2017 | 18-07-2017 | 108 | 328 | 37 | Non-Resident |\n| | 23-08-2017 | 31.03.2018 | 220 | | | |\n| 2018-19 | 01.04.2018 | 31-03-2019 | 365 | 365 | 0 | Non-Resident

SHRI DARBARA SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short ‘the Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee had received interest of Rs. 59,12,449/- on delayed payment of compensation on acquisition of land by the Chandigarh Administration. Since

SH. AMAN SETH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

150. Issue penalty notice u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Being aggrieved by the AO order dt. 10/02/2015 (supra) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who by an order dt. 05/06/2017 has sustained the additions. 7. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A) dt. 05/06/2017

M/S TRIVIKRAM REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER & CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

150/- 0n total turnover at Rs.6,51,00,000/.- excluding turnover declared for the AY2012-13. The assessment for the AY 2013- 14 has been completed on 30.03.2016 accepting turnover and net profit declared as per revised return. 8. The Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1) (c) on the income declared by the Assessee

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

The appeal is disposed off accordingly as aforesaid

Bench: Us:

150 (KER)[2018]) dated 02.07.2018 that the effect of Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, 1961 would make available deductions only if contributions are paid within the due dates prescribed in the respective statutes. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B of the IT Act has no effect in so far as employees contribution

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

SMT. JYOTI JAIN,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessees are allowed for

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1074/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Lalit Jain The Assistant Commissioner बनाम S.C.O. 371-372, 2Nd Floor, Of Income Tax Circle-4(1), Sector-35B, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No : Aaupj 0091Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

150/- in the case of Shri. Lalit Jain and 56,58,000/- in the case of Smt. Jyoti Jain. That the revised return filed by the assessee was assessed as ITA Nos. 1074&1075/Chd/2019 Lalit Jain & Jyoti Jain v. ACIT, Chandigarh 3 such in both cases and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated. That against the assessment order

SH. LALIT JAIN,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessees are allowed for

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1074/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Lalit Jain The Assistant Commissioner बनाम S.C.O. 371-372, 2Nd Floor, Of Income Tax Circle-4(1), Sector-35B, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No : Aaupj 0091Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

150/- in the case of Shri. Lalit Jain and 56,58,000/- in the case of Smt. Jyoti Jain. That the revised return filed by the assessee was assessed as ITA Nos. 1074&1075/Chd/2019 Lalit Jain & Jyoti Jain v. ACIT, Chandigarh 3 such in both cases and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated. That against the assessment order

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

271(1) (b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was also issued vide letter No.763 dated 17.8.2009 for non-furnishing of information. In all these cases, hearing was fixed on 19.8.2009. On this date, the assessee furnished reply, vide letter dated 17.8.2009 of its CA, Sh.Manoj Gupta vide which it furnished some of the addresses of the account holders

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

271(1) (b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was also issued vide letter No.763 dated 17.8.2009 for non-furnishing of information. In all these cases, hearing was fixed on 19.8.2009. On this date, the assessee furnished reply, vide letter dated 17.8.2009 of its CA, Sh.Manoj Gupta vide which it furnished some of the addresses of the account holders

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

150 104 Acquisition 3962 1,65,14,270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

150 104 Acquisition 3962 1,65,14,270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

150 104 Acquisition 3962 1,65,14,270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

150 104 Acquisition 3962 1,65,14,270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

150 104 Acquisition 3962 1,65,14,270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

150 104 Acquisition 3962 1,65,14,270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

150 104 Acquisition 3962 1,65,14,270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page

HUSNA BEGAM,YAMUNA NAGAR, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, YAMUNA NAGAR, YAMUNA NAGAR, HARYANA

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

u/s 144 by the AO, without appreciating the fact that the investment of Rs. 1,03,09,200/- was made out of the sale proceeds of agricultural land amounting to Rs. 78,70,000/- and out of the agricultural income of the assessee and there was legitimate sources for purchase of agricultural land. 6. That the learned