DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

15 totalling to. 75% tax u/s 115 BBE of the Act, apart from penalty u/s 271 AAC of the Act @ 10% w.e.f. 1.4.2017. Further, that a specific charge was levied by the Assessing officer in the penalty notice regarding the concealment of particulars of income and, as such, there was no defect in the notice. 10. We have heard

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

15 totalling to. 75% tax u/s 115 BBE of the Act, apart from penalty u/s 271 AAC of the Act @ 10% w.e.f. 1.4.2017. Further, that a specific charge was levied by the Assessing officer in the penalty notice regarding the concealment of particulars of income and, as such, there was no defect in the notice. 10. We have heard

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

15 totalling to. 75% tax u/s 115 BBE of the Act, apart from penalty u/s 271 AAC of the Act @ 10% w.e.f. 1.4.2017. Further, that a specific charge was levied by the Assessing officer in the penalty notice regarding the concealment of particulars of income and, as such, there was no defect in the notice. 10. We have heard

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

15 totalling to. 75% tax u/s 115 BBE of the Act, apart from penalty u/s 271 AAC of the Act @ 10% w.e.f. 1.4.2017. Further, that a specific charge was levied by the Assessing officer in the penalty notice regarding the concealment of particulars of income and, as such, there was no defect in the notice. 10. We have heard

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

15 totalling to. 75% tax u/s 115 BBE of the Act, apart from penalty u/s 271 AAC of the Act @ 10% w.e.f. 1.4.2017. Further, that a specific charge was levied by the Assessing officer in the penalty notice regarding the concealment of particulars of income and, as such, there was no defect in the notice. 10. We have heard

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. You are hereby requested to appear before me at 11.30AM on 26.12.2013 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 274 read with section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through

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 71(1){c) would embrace the details of the claim made. Where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provisions, the penalty provision cannot be invoked

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 71(1){c) would embrace the details of the claim made. Where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provisions, the penalty provision cannot be invoked

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. You are hereby requested to appear before me at 11.30AM on 26.12.2013 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 274 read with section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through

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. You are hereby requested to appear before me at 11.30AM on 26.12.2013 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 274 read with section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

15 and the A.O. herself dropped the penalty on the addition of Rs. 1,40,955/-, the only addition which remained intact for the purposes of levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was Rs. 81,072/- . On the said addition the A.O. levied penalty of Rs. 17,242/-. However when the information was sought

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

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 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

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 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

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