DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of section 270A shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of section 270A shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of section 270A shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of section 270A shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of section 270A shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section

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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable, we find no merit in the same. The facts on record point otherwise. Undoubtedly it was the assessee who had surrendered Rs.28 lacs during search. The surrender was never retracted by the assessee. Nothing to this effect is recorded in the orders of the authorities below nor has been brought

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable, we find no merit in the same. The facts on record point otherwise. Undoubtedly it was the assessee who had surrendered Rs.28 lacs during search. The surrender was never retracted by the assessee. Nothing to this effect is recorded in the orders of the authorities below nor has been brought

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable, we find no merit in the same. The facts on record point otherwise. Undoubtedly it was the assessee who had surrendered Rs.28 lacs during search. The surrender was never retracted by the assessee. Nothing to this effect is recorded in the orders of the authorities below nor has been brought

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)

24 provided to it. The AO observed in the penalty order that on 15.10.2019, none appeared before her and a letter was received vide e-mail on that day at 12.12 OM; that she had gone through this letter, however, the assessee had once again simply resorted to leveling baseless allegations using loose language; that the assessee had already been

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section. 5.2.2. From the above decisions, it is clear that the determination whether the penalty is leviable or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and cannot be brought in to any straight jacket formula. 5.3. Brief facts in the present case are that the Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) was designated as Nodal Agency by the Chandigarh

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no valid satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings, hence the order passed u/s 274 r.w.s271(l)(c) of the Act are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. Moreover, no satisfaction has been recorded in the penalty order

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no valid satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings, hence the order passed u/s 274 r.w.s271(l)(c) of the Act are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. Moreover, no satisfaction has been recorded in the penalty order

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no valid satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings, hence the order passed u/s 274 r.w.s271(l)(c) of the Act are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. Moreover, no satisfaction has been recorded in the penalty order

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no valid satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings, hence the order passed u/s 274 r.w.s271(l)(c) of the Act are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. Moreover, no satisfaction has been recorded in the penalty order

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no valid satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings, hence the order passed u/s 274 r.w.s271(l)(c) of the Act are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. Moreover, no satisfaction has been recorded in the penalty order

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no valid satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings, hence the order passed u/s 274 r.w.s271(l)(c) of the Act are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. Moreover, no satisfaction has been recorded in the penalty order

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

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