DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

14. In view of this, though, we are of the view that the legal plea taken by the assessee that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted because the relevant provisions of section 271AAA were applicable, is not tenable, yet we are of the view that otherwise, the provisions of section 271

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

14. In view of this, though, we are of the view that the legal plea taken by the assessee that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted because the relevant provisions of section 271AAA were applicable, is not tenable, yet we are of the view that otherwise, the provisions of section 271

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

14. In view of this, though, we are of the view that the legal plea taken by the assessee that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted because the relevant provisions of section 271AAA were applicable, is not tenable, yet we are of the view that otherwise, the provisions of section 271

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

14. In view of this, though, we are of the view that the legal plea taken by the assessee that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted because the relevant provisions of section 271AAA were applicable, is not tenable, yet we are of the view that otherwise, the provisions of section 271

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

14. In view of this, though, we are of the view that the legal plea taken by the assessee that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted because the relevant provisions of section 271AAA were applicable, is not tenable, yet we are of the view that otherwise, the provisions of section 271

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)

2. On the facts and are the circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty order dated 30.05.2014 passed u/s 271(l)(c) is invalid and bad in law. The appellant hereby very humbly prays Your Honor to admit the additional grounds raised in the interest of justice, as these grounds being purely legal grounds were inadvertently omitted

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

2,20,282 Dividend Received 10,50,047 Foreign Exchange Fluctuation 7,99,987 Miscellaneous Receipt 1,14,089 Sundry Credit balances written back 99 A further addition of Rs.5,55,241/- was made by disallowing the expense claimed against exempt income u/s 14A. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated w.r.t. all the above referred restriction

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

2,20,282 Dividend Received 10,50,047 Foreign Exchange Fluctuation 7,99,987 Miscellaneous Receipt 1,14,089 Sundry Credit balances written back 99 A further addition of Rs.5,55,241/- was made by disallowing the expense claimed against exempt income u/s 14A. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated w.r.t. all the above referred restriction

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

2) CIT Vs. Mithila Motors (1984) 149 ITR 751 (Pat) 3) Grass Farms & Resorts (P)Ltd. Vs. DCIT IT Appeal No.730 (jp) of 2011(ITAT, Jaipur Bench) 4) Airen Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 5) Labh Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-3, Kaithal Date of orod 5.8.2016 6) Vasantbhai Haribhai Gajera Vs. DCIT 7) Trishul Enterprises Vs. ACIT ITA No.384 & 385/Mum/2014

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

2) CIT Vs. Mithila Motors (1984) 149 ITR 751 (Pat) 3) Grass Farms & Resorts (P)Ltd. Vs. DCIT IT Appeal No.730 (jp) of 2011(ITAT, Jaipur Bench) 4) Airen Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 5) Labh Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-3, Kaithal Date of orod 5.8.2016 6) Vasantbhai Haribhai Gajera Vs. DCIT 7) Trishul Enterprises Vs. ACIT ITA No.384 & 385/Mum/2014

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

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

2), Chennai [reported in (2021) 124 Taxmann.com 363]. 14. In our considered view, the Tribunal is fully right in vacating the penalty on the ground that the notice was defective. The provisions of the Act have clearly laid down the procedure to be followed and adhered to while imposing the penalty. The proposal for such penalty proceedings was separately initiated

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

u/s 271(l)(c) has been levied on the addition of Rs. 81,072/- made under the head 'Income from Other Sources'. Further, reply to query no. 1 may be referred for the calculation of penalty. iii. Please provide the information whether any approval of the Addl. CIT/JCIT Mohali Range has been obtained before levy of penalty. Since penalty levied

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

M/S SEL TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, theappeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.695/Chd/2018 धििागरणवर्ग / Assessment Year :2014-15 बिाम M/S Sel Textiles Limited, The Dcit, 273-74,G.T. Road, Central Circle-Iii, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana Ludhiana स्थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aancs0401M अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent धििागररतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राजस्वकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh. Ram Mohan, Cit Dr सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2019 उदघोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2019 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg:

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of section 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation:--- For the purpose of this section,__ (a)……… (b)………. (c) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income

SMT. VANI JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of section 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation:--- For the purpose of this section,__ (a)……… (b)………. (c) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income