M/S PUNJAB HERITAGE & TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are hereby

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). ITA No. 157/Chd/2015 for assessment year 2007-08 is taken as a lead case for narration of facts. ITA No. 157/Chd/2015 for AY 2007-08 3. The assessee is a society created by the Punjab Government. The assessee applied for registration u/s 12AA

M/S PUNJAB HERITAGE & TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are hereby

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). ITA No. 157/Chd/2015 for assessment year 2007-08 is taken as a lead case for narration of facts. ITA No. 157/Chd/2015 for AY 2007-08 3. The assessee is a society created by the Punjab Government. The assessee applied for registration u/s 12AA

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 imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been confirmed. Thus, the present appeal is rejected. 16. Before parting with this order, we would like to take cognizance of Section 159

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 imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been confirmed. Thus, the present appeal is rejected. 16. Before parting with this order, we would like to take cognizance of Section 159

SH. BALWAN SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 21-03-05 & 28-11-08 respectively and relate to the same assessment year (in short referred to as A.Y) i.e 1995-96. 2. Initially both the appeals had been dismissed by the ITAT on limitation grounds, not condoning the delay in filing of the same, vide their order dated

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. SH. JAGMOHAN SINGH, LUDHIANA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

159/- has been explained as the total of all bank balances. 5. Before us, Ld. DR relied on the assessment order mentioned above. 6. Ld. AR submitted with the support of the copies of the bank statements that the closing balances of the various accounts is as under: Standard Chartered Bank – Jagmohan Dhaliwal - Rs. 9,85,530/- Standard Chartered Bank

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S PALACE JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the l.T.Act,1961 are initiated separately on the above issue. (Addition of Rs.94,75,428/-) 6.1 The Ld. CIT DR carrying us through the specific paras of the impugned order wherein relief has been granted by the CIT-A challenged by the Revenue in the present proceeding assailed the finding stating that relief has been

PALACE JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the l.T.Act,1961 are initiated separately on the above issue. (Addition of Rs.94,75,428/-) 6.1 The Ld. CIT DR carrying us through the specific paras of the impugned order wherein relief has been granted by the CIT-A challenged by the Revenue in the present proceeding assailed the finding stating that relief has been

SH. INDER SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH L/H SMT. SWARAN KAUR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-5, YAMUNA NAGAR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 94/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Inder Singh (Deceased) The Ito, Through L.H. Smt. Swaran Kaur, Vs Ward – 5, Village – Fazalpur, Po-Sadaura, Yamuna Nagar. Teh-Jagadhari, Distt.Yamuna Nagar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cxxps1419P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Vibhuti Thakur, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of the notice. The ld. counsel for the assessee appeared thereafter only. However, we have permitted the ld. counsel for the assessee to argue on merits. We have invited attention to show us the source from where these deposits have been made. She has only apprised us that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is premature in nature. ITA No.992 & 993/CHD/2024 & CO 46 & 45/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18 & 2016-17 14 5.5 Ground of Appeal No. 7 is consequential in nature. 5.6 Ground of Appeal No. 8 has not been argued by the AR during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. In the result

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections\nare dismissed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 which is premature in nature.\n5.5 Ground of Appeal No. 7 is consequential in nature.\n5.6 Ground of Appeal No. 8 has not been argued by the AR during the course of\nappellate proceedings.\n6. In the result the appeal is allowed on factual grounds.”\n11. Before

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

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) is initiated. 5. in view of the above the total income of the assessee is computed as under:- 1 Returned income 10,85,000/- 2 Additions as discussed above 7,12,50,000/- 3 Assessed Income 7,23,35,000/- 4 Income on which tax to charged in terms

GURDISH KAUR KHULAR,JALANDHAR vs. ACIT( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order assessee preferred appeal before the worthy CIT(A)-42, New Delhi. GROUND: 2 That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in framing the impugned assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s.147 and without complying with the mandatory

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)

159 taxmann.com 715 distinguished judgement of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Mahender Pal Narang reported in 423 ITR 13 endorsed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by dismissing the SLP as reported in 279 Taxman 74(SC) vide its order dated 4th March 2021 and treated this issue as debatable issue

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)

159 taxmann.com 715 distinguished judgement of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Mahender Pal Narang reported in 423 ITR 13 endorsed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by dismissing the SLP as reported in 279 Taxman 74(SC) vide its order dated 4th March 2021 and treated this issue as debatable issue

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)

159 taxmann.com 715 distinguished judgement of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Mahender Pal Narang reported in 423 ITR 13 endorsed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by dismissing the SLP as reported in 279 Taxman 74(SC) vide its order dated 4th March 2021 and treated this issue as debatable issue

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)

159 taxmann.com 715 distinguished judgement of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Mahender Pal Narang reported in 423 ITR 13 endorsed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by dismissing the SLP as reported in 279 Taxman 74(SC) vide its order dated 4th March 2021 and treated this issue as debatable issue

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)

159 taxmann.com 715 distinguished judgement of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Mahender Pal Narang reported in 423 ITR 13 endorsed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by dismissing the SLP as reported in 279 Taxman 74(SC) vide its order dated 4th March 2021 and treated this issue as debatable issue