SH. RAJIV KUMAR,MOHALI vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied pursuant to the aforesaid quantum additions. I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010 I.T.A. No.274,275/CHANDI/2014 Shri Rajiv Kumar Shri Sohan Lal Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. So far as the appeal agitating the quantum additions are concerned, the assessees apart from contesting the additions on merits, have taken the following additional

SH. RAJIV KUMAR,MOHALI vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied pursuant to the aforesaid quantum additions. I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010 I.T.A. No.274,275/CHANDI/2014 Shri Rajiv Kumar Shri Sohan Lal Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. So far as the appeal agitating the quantum additions are concerned, the assessees apart from contesting the additions on merits, have taken the following additional

SH.SOHAN LAL ARORA,MOHALI vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied pursuant to the aforesaid quantum additions. I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010 I.T.A. No.274,275/CHANDI/2014 Shri Rajiv Kumar Shri Sohan Lal Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. So far as the appeal agitating the quantum additions are concerned, the assessees apart from contesting the additions on merits, have taken the following additional

SH. S.L. ARORA,MOHALI vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied pursuant to the aforesaid quantum additions. I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010 I.T.A. No.274,275/CHANDI/2014 Shri Rajiv Kumar Shri Sohan Lal Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. So far as the appeal agitating the quantum additions are concerned, the assessees apart from contesting the additions on merits, have taken the following additional

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. S.L. ARORA, MOHALI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied pursuant to the aforesaid quantum additions. I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010 I.T.A. No.274,275/CHANDI/2014 Shri Rajiv Kumar Shri Sohan Lal Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. So far as the appeal agitating the quantum additions are concerned, the assessees apart from contesting the additions on merits, have taken the following additional

DCIT, C-2, (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S HP STATE REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH CARE SOCIETY , SHIMLA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. Since common issue is involved in all the appeals being penalty levied on account of addition made by treating grants-in-aid received by the assessee as its income, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. For the sake

S.D.S. ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

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

section 271(1)(c) on disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.556656/-.” 3. At the outset, itself, it was pointed out that the issue on which penalty was levied related to the disallowance of depreciation on account of reallocation of depreciation between the eligible and non eligible unit amounting to Rs.5,56,656/-. It was pointed out that the assessee

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)

191 held that for disallowance u/s 36(l)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the total fund (i.e owned fund and borrowed funds) is considered for working out the disallowance of interest. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the above said case held that “ Where mixed funds are diverted towards interest free advances, the disallowance

DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. SHRI GURU GOBIND SINGH FOUNDATION, MOGA

In the result appeal of the Department as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargdci T, C-1 (E) Shri Guru Gobind Singh Foundation Circle- 1 (Exemption) 601/11, Tanki Wali Gali No. 2, Dashmesh Chandigarh Nagar Vs. Moga- Punjab Pan No. – Aadts0332A Appellant Respondent

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars are initiated on this account. 6. Assessee has given this loan to its sister concern and showing the same into the books as loan/advances recoverable. This amount is fund of assessee, which should be part of corpus/capital and deposited in modes u/s 11(5). Assessee has shown this as advance

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

SH. RAVINANDAN KUMAR,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars of income are being initiated separately. (Addition of Rs.40,53,426/-) 5. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and stated that despite reiterating his contention which were made before the AO, before the CIT(A) also, as reproduced at para

KANGRA VALLEY GARDEN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DHARAMSHALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

u/s 68 were completely looked into. (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nr Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. on 22 November, 2013 "Whether or not onus is discharged depends upon facts of each case. It depends on whether the two parties are related or known to each; the manner or mode by which the parties approached each other, whether the transaction

KANGRA VALLEY GARDEN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DHARAMSHALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

u/s 68 were completely looked into. (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nr Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. on 22 November, 2013 "Whether or not onus is discharged depends upon facts of each case. It depends on whether the two parties are related or known to each; the manner or mode by which the parties approached each other, whether the transaction

KANGRA VALLEY GARDEN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DHARAMSHALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

u/s 68 were completely looked into. (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nr Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. on 22 November, 2013 "Whether or not onus is discharged depends upon facts of each case. It depends on whether the two parties are related or known to each; the manner or mode by which the parties approached each other, whether the transaction