DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)(c). Thus the facts of the case are different from the appellant's ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 9 case as the claim made in the original return was withdrawn in the revised return filed. 5.1.2 Hamirpur Distt. Cooperative Bank Ltd vs DCIT

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)(c). Thus the facts of the case are different from the appellant's ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 9 case as the claim made in the original return was withdrawn in the revised return filed. 5.1.2 Hamirpur Distt. Cooperative Bank Ltd vs DCIT

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)(c). Thus the facts of the case are different from the appellant's ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 9 case as the claim made in the original return was withdrawn in the revised return filed. 5.1.2 Hamirpur Distt. Cooperative Bank Ltd vs DCIT

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)(c). Thus the facts of the case are different from the appellant's ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 9 case as the claim made in the original return was withdrawn in the revised return filed. 5.1.2 Hamirpur Distt. Cooperative Bank Ltd vs DCIT

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

u/s 271(l)(c). Thus the facts of the case are different from the appellant's ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 9 case as the claim made in the original return was withdrawn in the revised return filed. 5.1.2 Hamirpur Distt. Cooperative Bank Ltd vs DCIT

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

271(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

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

271(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

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(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

M/S COLOUR COTTEX PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-5(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

200/- as against returned income of Rs.28,08,270/-. While completing the assessment in this case, the Assessing Officer has made addition on account of disallowance of ROC Expenses of Rs.6,02,000/-the to the returned income of the assessee company. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

SH. PRINCE SHARMA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-5(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset it was pointed out to us from the order of the authorities below that the penalty was levied on account of the following additions made: 1) Addition on account of notional rent u/s 23(1) of the Act = Rs.1,93,200/- 2 A.Y.2013-14 2) Addition on account of un- disclosed

JASBIR SINGH,PATIALA vs. ITO, W-2, PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

200/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is illegal, arbitrary & unjustified. 2. That the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not imposable in as much as there is neither any concealment of income nor furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income and as such the order passed under section 271

RAM KUMAR,NEHRU GARDEN COLONY vs. ITO WARD 2, KAITHAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

200/- was imposed under section 271(1) of the Act. 28. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. AO dt. 26/06/2019 exercised his right of first appeal and preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by an order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061111793(1) dt. 19/02/2024 passed in terms of section 250 of the Act has sustained the aforesaid

RAM KUMAR,NEHRU GARDEN COLONY vs. ITO WARD 2 KAITHAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, AMBALA ROAD KAITHAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

200/- was imposed under section 271(1) of the Act. 28. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. AO dt. 26/06/2019 exercised his right of first appeal and preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by an order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061111793(1) dt. 19/02/2024 passed in terms of section 250 of the Act has sustained the aforesaid

M/S ANUBHUTI COLD CHAINS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-4(4), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhm/S Anubhuti Cold Chains Vs. The Ito Pvt. Ltd.,Sco 363-364, Ward 4(4), 2Nd Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh Chandigarh Pan No. Aagca7238R (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c) under Income Tax Act, 1961 levied by Ld. Assessing officer on the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on disallowance of share application money introduced without considering the facts and figures when no concealment of income has taken place. 2. The ld. AR inviting attention to the grounds raised submitted that in the penalty proceedings

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

KHOSLA MACHINES PVT. LTD. ,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1 (1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the penalty so levied and sustained u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: Us.

200% as so provided in Section 35(2AB) of the Act and the said explanation has not been rebutted by the AO. In light of the same and given that the quantum and penalty proceedings are separate proceedings, merely the fact that the assessee has not challenged the findings of the AO in the quantum proceedings, the same cannot form

J. K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10. 2. All these cases are heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With the consent of both the parties, appeal in ITA No. 126/Asr/2019 for A.Y 2008-09 was taken as a lead case wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal

J.K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE-1,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10. 2. All these cases are heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With the consent of both the parties, appeal in ITA No. 126/Asr/2019 for A.Y 2008-09 was taken as a lead case wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal