DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

4(c) read with Explanation I to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the income, the particulars relating to which has been concealed by the assessee, is to be considered for computing the tax sought to be evaded. That the assessments for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 were pending as on the date

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

4(c) read with Explanation I to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the income, the particulars relating to which has been concealed by the assessee, is to be considered for computing the tax sought to be evaded. That the assessments for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 were pending as on the date

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

4(c) read with Explanation I to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the income, the particulars relating to which has been concealed by the assessee, is to be considered for computing the tax sought to be evaded. That the assessments for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 were pending as on the date

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

4(c) read with Explanation I to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the income, the particulars relating to which has been concealed by the assessee, is to be considered for computing the tax sought to be evaded. That the assessments for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 were pending as on the date

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

4(c) read with Explanation I to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the income, the particulars relating to which has been concealed by the assessee, is to be considered for computing the tax sought to be evaded. That the assessments for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 were pending as on the date

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

172 Taxman 386 (SC)/[2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC)/[2008] 218 CTR 359)where Hon'ble Delhi Supreme Court held that amendment made in Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c)(iii) with effect from 1-4-2003 is clarificatory and, therefore, will have retrospective effect 6. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com

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)

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 186 2,00,000 31 10/5/2017 To Cash 219 2,00,000 32 11/5/2017 To Cash 224 2,00,000 33 12/5/2017 To Cash

J.K.EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

172 to 180] 2014-15 16,47,360/- 25,00,000/- 41,47,360/- Accepted and tax was charged u/s 164(2) 2015-16 19,00,800/- 25,00,000/- 44,00,800/- Accepted and tax was charged u/s 164(2) 6.5 It was further submitted that the provisions of section 13(l)(c) r.w.s

J.K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE-1,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

172 to 180] 2014-15 16,47,360/- 25,00,000/- 41,47,360/- Accepted and tax was charged u/s 164(2) 2015-16 19,00,800/- 25,00,000/- 44,00,800/- Accepted and tax was charged u/s 164(2) 6.5 It was further submitted that the provisions of section 13(l)(c) r.w.s

J. K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

172 to 180] 2014-15 16,47,360/- 25,00,000/- 41,47,360/- Accepted and tax was charged u/s 164(2) 2015-16 19,00,800/- 25,00,000/- 44,00,800/- Accepted and tax was charged u/s 164(2) 6.5 It was further submitted that the provisions of section 13(l)(c) r.w.s

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

u/s 133A of the IT Act to find out the true facts of the case when there was no compliance and cooperation on the part of the assessee to prove its primary onus. And on the basis of survey only true facts of the case were ascertained which helped in ascertaining the factual reality. The assessing office collected information u/s

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

u/s 133A of the IT Act to find out the true facts of the case when there was no compliance and cooperation on the part of the assessee to prove its primary onus. And on the basis of survey only true facts of the case were ascertained which helped in ascertaining the factual reality. The assessing office collected information u/s

SHER SINGH,PALAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAMPUR

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)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 AAC(1) is also initiated for addition of Rs.44,70,000/- which is taxed as per provisions of section 115BBE of Income tax Act, 1961. 5. After examining the records available and information/documents and explanation submitted by the assessee and to the above remarks, total income assessed as under: Total Income As per return

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result of the value of the opening stock and closing stock

Penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A) who relying upon the decision taken in 2005-06 to 2012-13 assessment year by his predecessor, allowed the appeal of the assessee holding as under : 6.1 Similar addition was made

M/S INTERNATIONAL FRESH FARM PRODUCTS (INDIA) LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 1150 are exempt u/s 10(34). Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) is not a dividend declared by the domestic company u/s 1150 of the I.T. Act. 4.14 Thus the facts of the case are as follows: 1. The assessee company has received loan of Rs.l 1,00,000/- during the year from a company i.e. M/S Punjab Metallic

KALANEEDHI JEWELLERS LLP,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB are being initiated on this undisclosed income. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A)and furnished the written submissions which are incorporated in para 3 of the impugned order and read as under: "“Sub: Written Submission in the case of M/s. Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, House No. 123C, Model Town, Patiala

SSMT. CHARU AGGARWAL,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB are being initiated on this undisclosed income. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A)and furnished the written submissions which are incorporated in para 3 of the impugned order and read as under: "“Sub: Written Submission in the case of M/s. Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, House No. 123C, Model Town, Patiala

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S INCITE HOMECARE PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) are initiated on this point for furnishing inaccurate particular income. 9.1. A perusal of the impugned order shows that considering the written submissions of the assessee and the arguments advanced, the CIT(A) deleted the addition holding as under : 14. I have carefully considered the appellant's various submission. I have also gone through