DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16

SH. CHETAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptash.Chetan Jain, Vs. The D.C.I.T., B-121, Pushap Vihar, Central Circle-Iii, Canal Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aaypj0618H (Appellant) (Respondent)

16. Now coming to the ground raised challenging the levy of penalty as per Explanation 5A to section 271(1)© of the Act, before us the Ld. counsel for assessee relied upon the submissions made before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) reproduced in the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) at para-2 and which briefly stated are as under: 1. Since

HYCRON ELECTRONICS vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

271(1)(c) were also initiated w.r.t. all the above referred restriction in deduction claimed and disallowances made. The issues on which penalty levied is as under:- Amount of addition on which penalty Issues where penalty proceedings proceedings initiated initiated 8m A.Y. claim of deduction u/s 80IC Rs.7,36,16,042/- Other income Rs.21,84,505/- U/s 14A Rs.5

DCIT, PARWANOO vs. M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS, SOLAN

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

271(1)(c) were also initiated w.r.t. all the above referred restriction in deduction claimed and disallowances made. The issues on which penalty levied is as under:- Amount of addition on which penalty Issues where penalty proceedings proceedings initiated initiated 8m A.Y. claim of deduction u/s 80IC Rs.7,36,16,042/- Other income Rs.21,84,505/- U/s 14A Rs.5

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

16. Now coming to the ground raised challenging the levy of penalty as per Explanation 5A to section 271(1)© of the Act, before us the Ld. counsel for assessee relied upon the submissions made before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) reproduced in the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) at para-2 and which briefly stated are as under: 1. Since

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

16. Now coming to the ground raised challenging the levy of penalty as per Explanation 5A to section 271(1)© of the Act, before us the Ld. counsel for assessee relied upon the submissions made before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) reproduced in the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) at para-2 and which briefly stated are as under: 1. Since

SH RAMESH KUMAR DUDANI,MOHALI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE -6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the reply given vide letter dt. 30/05/2019 (copy of which is placed at page no. 16 & 17 of the assessee’s paper book) was as under: “F.No:DCIT/Circle6(1)/Mohali/2019-20/178 Dated: 30.05.2019 To Sh. Ramesh Dudani C-104, I.A., Phase-7, Mohali. Sir, Sub: Calculation in respect of penalty u/s

M/S HAPPY STEEL PRIVATE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahay

u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the section 271AAB of the Act in the notice, it does not talk anything about the provisions of section 271AAB. Therefore, certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically' is not a correct notice in the eyes

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

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

SH. PAWAN SAHNI,SOLAN vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 AAA is not leviable.” 12. The Ld. counsel for assessee, therefore, contended that the assessee having complied with all the conditions specified for grant of immunity u/s 271AAA sub-section (2) of the Act and the CIT(A) having himself deleted the penalty levied in identical circumstances in the case of other assessees of the same group

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