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. SH. KULWANT 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. SH. KULWANT 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. 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)

III, Canal Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. PAN: AAYPJ0618H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Smt.Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 24.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. : This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 5, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as CIT(Appeals)) dated 25.11.2016 relating

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

III, Canal Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. PAN: ABNPJ4747M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rajiv Gupta, CA Respondent by : Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 21.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M.: Both these appeals filed by the assessee have been preferred against separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, Ludhiana both dated 25.11.2016 relating

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

III, Canal Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. PAN: ABNPJ4747M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rajiv Gupta, CA Respondent by : Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 21.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M.: Both these appeals filed by the assessee have been preferred against separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, Ludhiana both dated 25.11.2016 relating

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

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

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. That levy of penalty and upholding the same is bad in law in as much as the same is barred by limitation as the assessment order has been passed on 29.12.2017 [ and the penalty should have been levied by 30.06.2018. 3. That levy of penalty and upholding the same is bad in law in as much as neither

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:

u/s 271 AAB on 30-09-2016 whereby levied penalty under Clause (c) of Sec. 271AAB at Rs. 4,31,99,747/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the above orderof the Assessing officer levying the penalty under clause(c) of section 271AAB of the Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) but remained unsuccessful.Thus, the assessee has come inappeal

M/S MAHARAJA LIGHT & TENT SERVICES,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

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

14,39,99,258/- as its undisclosed income of the year and since the assessee did not substantiate the manner of earning of the said income, hence, the Assessing officer rightly imposed the penalty under the provisions of seciton271AAB (1)(c) of the Act. He has further submitted that even otherwise, as per the provisions of section 271AAB

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

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

14,39,99,258/- as its undisclosed income of the year and since the assessee did not substantiate the manner of earning of the said income, hence, the Assessing officer rightly imposed the penalty under the provisions of seciton271AAB (1)(c) of the Act. He has further submitted that even otherwise, as per the provisions of section 271AAB