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

u/s 274 must specifically spell out the charge fixed on the assessee for the purpose of levy of penalty whether concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by striking out the irrelevant clause in the notice. Para 59 of the order deals with the same and is being reproduced hereunder for reference: “NOTICE UNDER SECTION

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

u/s 274 must specifically spell out the charge fixed on the assessee for the purpose of levy of penalty whether concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by striking out the irrelevant clause in the notice. Para 59 of the order deals with the same and is being reproduced hereunder for reference: “NOTICE UNDER SECTION

SH. DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 25.06.2009 against whom appeal has been dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) by way of the impugned order). 2. It has been brought to our notice that assessee Shri Dinesh Sethi has died on 14.02.2024. Death Certificate of the assessee has been annexed by the ld. counsel for the assessee

SHRI DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 25.06.2009 against whom appeal has been dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) by way of the impugned order). 2. It has been brought to our notice that assessee Shri Dinesh Sethi has died on 14.02.2024. Death Certificate of the assessee has been annexed by the ld. counsel for the assessee

JCIT(OSD), C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S KUANTUM PAPERS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe D.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Kuantum Papers Ltd., Circle-1(1), Sco 18-19, 1St Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. Pan: Aadca2231K (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 143(3)/153A for A.Y. 2008-09. As the depreciation for A.Y. 2008-09 has been disallowed and the depreciation in A.Y. 2009-10 has been allowed on the full cost of plant as the same was put to use in April, 2008. Total depreciation of Rs. 14,88,72,038/- has been allowed in A.Y. 2009-10, depreciation

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. Hence addition of Rs. 4,65,647/- 11. Per contra the assessee has contended that CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. case is not applicable to the facts of the present case in as much as no money taken on interest

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)

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 has preferred

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

271 (1)(c) of the Act. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA No. 973/Chd/2012 relevant to the assessment year 2006-07 and ITA No. 1330/Chd/2012 relating to assessment year 2006-07 have been dismissed vide common order dated 22.11.2016 on the ground of low tax effect. C.O.No

ITO, W-1(3), CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. RENU ANAND, CHANDIGARH

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

156,10,47,514.17 162,03,73,390.00 November 2012 146,69,98,468.18 144,24,45,520.00 December 2012 183,64,50,218.02 183,72,07,960.00 January 2013 239,57,64,283.26 236,42,34,831.11 February 2013 393,99,30,693.80 409,90,00,920.00 March 2013 377,67,51,524.14 355,94,69,210.00 The yearly