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 CIT(A) further held following the judgment of Jurisdictional 'Chandigarh Bench' in the case of 'Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 729/Chd/2016' that for claiming immunity from penalty u/s 271AAA, since the assessee had not been able to substantiate the manner of earning undisclosed income, penalty u/s 271AAA was held to be leviable

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 CIT(A) further held following the judgment of Jurisdictional 'Chandigarh Bench' in the case of 'Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 729/Chd/2016' that for claiming immunity from penalty u/s 271AAA, since the assessee had not been able to substantiate the manner of earning undisclosed income, penalty u/s 271AAA was held to be leviable

SURINDER SINGH RYAIT,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesse Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing Number: 09/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2017-18 Dt. 29/08/2019 Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2014 To 31/03/2015. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 That By An Order In First Appeal Bearing Number 09/It/Cit(A)- 5/Ldh/2017-18 Dt. 21/12/2018 The Ld. Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250(6) Of The Act Had Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Penalty Order Dt. 12/05/2017 Wherein Penalty Of Rs. 12,30,000/- Was Imposed On 2 The Assessee U/S 271Aab(1)(A). The 1St Appeal Of The Assessee Was Thus

Section 250(6) of the Act had allowed the appeal of the assessee against the penalty order dt. 12/05/2017 wherein penalty of Rs. 12,30,000/- was imposed on 2 the assessee u/s 271AAB(1)(a). The 1st appeal of the assessee was thus allowed. 2.2 That later on by the impugned order passed u/s 154

INDER PAL SINGH LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED SATNAM SINGH 171789, STREET NO.8, GURU TEG BAHADUR JAGRAON,PUNJAB vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JAGRAON , PUNJAB

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

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

154 2,00,000 24 24/4/2017 To Cash 160 2,00,000 25 25/4/2017 To Cash 163 2,00,000 26 26/4/2017 To Cash 172 2,00,000 27 27/4/2017 To Cash 175 2,00,000 28 28/4/2017 To Cash 178 2,00,000 29 29/4/2017 To Cash 183 2,00,000 30 30/4/2017 To Gash

SOHAN SINGH GARCHA,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptac.O. No. 39/Chd/2012 (In Ita No. 973/Chd/2012) "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 Shri Sohan Lal Garcha, Vs. The Dcit, 901/2, Punjab Mata Natar, Circle Vi, बनाम Ludhiana Ludhiana

penalty levied u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act, at this stage, has no legs to stand and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted. However, the Assessing Officer will be at liberty to initiate the same, if he deem so fit, in the light of the decision arrived at in the set aside issue on quantum addition

M/S SOBHAGIA CLOTHING COMPANY,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessees are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 96 To 97/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar is against law and facts on the file in as much as neither there was any mistake much less apparent mistake in the order dated 15.3.2018 passed by him against levy of penalty of Rs. 2.50 lacs u/s 271AAB by the Ld. Assessing

M/S SOBHAGIA SALES PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessees are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 96 To 97/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar is against law and facts on the file in as much as neither there was any mistake much less apparent mistake in the order dated 15.3.2018 passed by him against levy of penalty of Rs. 2.50 lacs u/s 271AAB by the Ld. Assessing

M/S SOBHAGIA SALES PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessees are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 96 To 97/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar is against law and facts on the file in as much as neither there was any mistake much less apparent mistake in the order dated 15.3.2018 passed by him against levy of penalty of Rs. 2.50 lacs u/s 271AAB by the Ld. Assessing

SH. S.L. ARORA,MOHALI vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied pursuant to the aforesaid quantum additions. I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010 I.T.A. No.274,275/CHANDI/2014 Shri Rajiv Kumar Shri Sohan Lal Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. So far as the appeal agitating the quantum additions are concerned, the assessees apart from contesting the additions on merits, have taken the following additional

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. S.L. ARORA, MOHALI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied pursuant to the aforesaid quantum additions. I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010 I.T.A. No.274,275/CHANDI/2014 Shri Rajiv Kumar Shri Sohan Lal Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. So far as the appeal agitating the quantum additions are concerned, the assessees apart from contesting the additions on merits, have taken the following additional

SH. RAJIV KUMAR,MOHALI vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied pursuant to the aforesaid quantum additions. I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010 I.T.A. No.274,275/CHANDI/2014 Shri Rajiv Kumar Shri Sohan Lal Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. So far as the appeal agitating the quantum additions are concerned, the assessees apart from contesting the additions on merits, have taken the following additional

SH. RAJIV KUMAR,MOHALI vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied pursuant to the aforesaid quantum additions. I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010 I.T.A. No.274,275/CHANDI/2014 Shri Rajiv Kumar Shri Sohan Lal Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. So far as the appeal agitating the quantum additions are concerned, the assessees apart from contesting the additions on merits, have taken the following additional

SH.SOHAN LAL ARORA,MOHALI vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied pursuant to the aforesaid quantum additions. I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010 I.T.A. No.274,275/CHANDI/2014 Shri Rajiv Kumar Shri Sohan Lal Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. So far as the appeal agitating the quantum additions are concerned, the assessees apart from contesting the additions on merits, have taken the following additional

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 SPECTRUM INNS AND MOTELS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-5(2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 254/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Spectrum Inss & Motels The Ito, बनाम Pvt.Ltd., Ward 5(2), Sco 154-154, Sector 43B, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaocs6433L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

154-154, Sector 43B, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAOCS6433L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ranchit Goyal, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manjit Singh, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 30.10.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2019 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg

SMT. JAGDEEP KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD 6(4), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048105767(1) Dt. 20/12/2022 Which Was Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Said First Appeal Was Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A). Therefore Assessee Is Before Us. The Said Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. 4. In Form No. 36 The Assessee Interalia Has Take Up Following Grounds Of Appeal Against The Impugned Order Which Are Reproduced Below:

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of particulars of income are being initiated separately. Penalty proceedings u/s 271F for non filing of Income Tax Return are being initiated separately. Based upon above, the total income of the assessee is computed as under:- Addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 Rs. 7,35,000/- Assessed

M/S ADITYA MEDICOS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri R.L Negi(Ita Nos. 300 & 301/Chd/2020) "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Aditya Medicos, The Dcit, बनाम Shop No. 4, New Shopping Central Circle-1, Complex, Chandigarh Sector 12, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaqfa8675H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 143(3) of the Act (for short ‘the Act’) and vide second order the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal file by the assessee ITA Nos. 300 & 301-Chd-2020- M/s Aditya Medicos, Chandigarh 2 against the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee

M/S ADITYA MEDICOS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri R.L Negi(Ita Nos. 300 & 301/Chd/2020) "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Aditya Medicos, The Dcit, बनाम Shop No. 4, New Shopping Central Circle-1, Complex, Chandigarh Sector 12, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaqfa8675H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 143(3) of the Act (for short ‘the Act’) and vide second order the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal file by the assessee ITA Nos. 300 & 301-Chd-2020- M/s Aditya Medicos, Chandigarh 2 against the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee