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

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

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

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini

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)

14. That the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order dated 15.11.2022 in which penalty under section 271(1)(b) was confirmed. This order was also not received by the assessee at the email id mentioned in the FORM 35. 15. That appellant has also filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order of penalty imposed under section

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

14,314/- by making addition of Rs.5,25,346/- on account of rejection of books and application of net profit rate. 2.2 Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income were also initiated in respect of above mentioned addition and notice u/s 271(1)(c) read with section

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)

14 14/4/2017 To Cash 109 2,00,000 15 15/4/2017 To Cash 115 2,00,000 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

PARAS AND SHUBHAM CHAUDHARY LEGAL HEIR OF KANHAIYA LAL,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

2)(viii) provides “income by way of an interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation refer to in sub-section 1 of Section 145B, meaning thereby that this will be taxed as ‘income from A.Y.2007-08 14 other sources’, however, ld. Counsel for the assesse relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT

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

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

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

Penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AR has also submitted that the addition in the partner's capita! account of Rs. 50 lacs should be considered as explained under the unaccounted sales transactions of Rs. 42.80 lacs in the impounded documents and other discrepancies of Rs. 7.2 lacs found during the course

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB, LUDHIANA vs. AMIT KUMAR, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL .YADAV, VP &SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 549/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3, Ludhiana Punjab बनाम Amit Kumar C/o Leeford Healthcare Ltd., LEO House, DugriDhadra Road, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं/ . PAN NO: ACBPK3657Q अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Cross Objection No. 23/Chd/2024 In (आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 549/Chd/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 20

section 271 AAB of the Act? 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. CO No. 23/CHD/2024 (Assessee) 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground of appeal for levy