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

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

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. In ITA No. 805/CHD/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year

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)

16. That for filing the reply to the said notice against penalty u.s271(1)(c) dated 17.08.2023 the appellant logged into the e-portal on 19.08.2023 and at that time the appellant came to know about the passing the order for penalty u/s 271(1)(b) by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated

M/S APEEJAY EDUCATION SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 271 (1 )(b), the AO without verifying the record that each and every notice has been complied with, issued show cause notice, and imposed penalty by a non-speaking order on her whims and fancies. If we go through the order of the AO, she has reproduced her show cause notices in the order but has in a very

AKM RESORTS,MOHALI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 2.7 Basis above premises, the ld. AO concluded that assessee is liable to penal action on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and default has been committed by the assessee within the meaning of Section 271

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)

16 16/4/2017 To Cash 121 2,00,000 17 17/4/2017 To Cash 126 2,00,000 18 18/4/2017 To Cash 131 2,00,000 19 19/4/2017 To Cash 136 2,00,000 20 20/4/2017 To Cash 139 2,00,000 21 21/4/2017 To Cash 145 2,00,000 22 22/4/2017 To Cash 149 2,00,000 23 23/4/2017 To Cash

SH. JAGMOHAN SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

penalty is leviable for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 14. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 54 of the Act. Section 54(1) provides that where the assessee has constructed a residential house in India within a period of three years after the date

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

16 year 2014-15 as Annexure ‘A’. In so far as assessment year 2014-15 is concerned we notice that following chronology of event is given under caption Chandigarh Housing Board assessment year 2014-15 : Sr. Date Order Remarks No. 1. 27.11.2014 u/s 143(1) The assessee is declared a income of Rs. 56,79,62,950/- 2. 14.12.2016 U/s

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

16 year 2014-15 as Annexure ‘A’. In so far as assessment year 2014-15 is concerned we notice that following chronology of event is given under caption Chandigarh Housing Board assessment year 2014-15 : Sr. Date Order Remarks No. 1. 27.11.2014 u/s 143(1) The assessee is declared a income of Rs. 56,79,62,950/- 2. 14.12.2016 U/s

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

16 year 2014-15 as Annexure ‘A’. In so far as assessment year 2014-15 is concerned we notice that following chronology of event is given under caption Chandigarh Housing Board assessment year 2014-15 : Sr. Date Order Remarks No. 1. 27.11.2014 u/s 143(1) The assessee is declared a income of Rs. 56,79,62,950/- 2. 14.12.2016 U/s

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

16 year 2014-15 as Annexure ‘A’. In so far as assessment year 2014-15 is concerned we notice that following chronology of event is given under caption Chandigarh Housing Board assessment year 2014-15 : Sr. Date Order Remarks No. 1. 27.11.2014 u/s 143(1) The assessee is declared a income of Rs. 56,79,62,950/- 2. 14.12.2016 U/s

AL RASHEED CHARITABLE SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. JCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

16,81,771/-u/s 271(1)(c) even\nwhen the initiation of penalty and imposition thereof is completely vague and without\nspecification of limb of s.271(1)(c) for which the same has been initiated and also finally\nimposed.\n4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the impugned penalty\norder passed by the Ld. AO u/s

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY ,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, AMBALA , AMBALA CANTT vs. SURINDER KUMAR VERMA , AMBALA

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.447/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito Ward-4 Shri Surinder Kumar Verma Aaykar Bhawan, B.C. Bazar बनाम/ Vs. H. No. 38, Kabir Nagar Ambala Cantt., Haryana - 133001 Ambala Cantt., Haryana - 133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acspv-3298-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 24-02-2024 Deleting Penalty Of Rs.70,53,886/- As Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 21-09-2015. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. The Ld. Sr. Dr Pleaded For Restoration Of Penalty As Levied By Ld. Ao. Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 1

16-03-2015 & 07-08- 2015, Ld. AO did not struck-off the irrelevant or non-applicable part / 2 charge and also did not specify the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized while initiating penalty against the assessee. The two limbs viz. concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, were separate charges and would

RAM KUMAR,NEHRU GARDEN COLONY vs. ITO WARD 2, KAITHAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

u/s 148 issued on basis of non existing facts. 6. That on the law, facts and circumstances of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 2070000/- without considering the written submission/paper-book uploaded on income tax portal on 30.01.2021. 7. The Appellant crave leave to amend alter or delete