DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

200 {Madras} In the above referred case, during the course of search conducted under section 132 in the business premises and the residential premises of the father of the assessee, certain amount of cash books of account and documents in respect of the assessee were seized. The AO issued notices to the assessee filed the return of income disclosing certain

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

200 {Madras} In the above referred case, during the course of search conducted under section 132 in the business premises and the residential premises of the father of the assessee, certain amount of cash books of account and documents in respect of the assessee were seized. The AO issued notices to the assessee filed the return of income disclosing certain

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

200 {Madras} In the above referred case, during the course of search conducted under section 132 in the business premises and the residential premises of the father of the assessee, certain amount of cash books of account and documents in respect of the assessee were seized. The AO issued notices to the assessee filed the return of income disclosing certain

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

200 {Madras} In the above referred case, during the course of search conducted under section 132 in the business premises and the residential premises of the father of the assessee, certain amount of cash books of account and documents in respect of the assessee were seized. The AO issued notices to the assessee filed the return of income disclosing certain

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

200 {Madras} In the above referred case, during the course of search conducted under section 132 in the business premises and the residential premises of the father of the assessee, certain amount of cash books of account and documents in respect of the assessee were seized. The AO issued notices to the assessee filed the return of income disclosing certain

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 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

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)

200/- Accepted u/s 143(3) 2013-14 14,57,280/- 25,00,000/- 39,57,280/- Accepted by ITAT [Refer Page No. 172 to 180] 2014-15 16,47,360/- 25,00,000/- 41,47,360/- Accepted and tax was charged u/s 164(2) 2015-16 19,00,800/- 25,00,000/- 44,00,800/- Accepted and tax was charged

J.K.EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), 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)

200/- Accepted u/s 143(3) 2013-14 14,57,280/- 25,00,000/- 39,57,280/- Accepted by ITAT [Refer Page No. 172 to 180] 2014-15 16,47,360/- 25,00,000/- 41,47,360/- Accepted and tax was charged u/s 164(2) 2015-16 19,00,800/- 25,00,000/- 44,00,800/- Accepted and tax was charged

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)

200/- Accepted u/s 143(3) 2013-14 14,57,280/- 25,00,000/- 39,57,280/- Accepted by ITAT [Refer Page No. 172 to 180] 2014-15 16,47,360/- 25,00,000/- 41,47,360/- Accepted and tax was charged u/s 164(2) 2015-16 19,00,800/- 25,00,000/- 44,00,800/- Accepted and tax was charged

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

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

3) of the Act dated 08.11.2016 at an assessed income of Rs. 36,77,200/- 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

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

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)

3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. The penalty was imposed for concealment of material particulars of income of Rs. 20,70,000/-. Notices under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act, were issued on 11/12/2018 fixing the case for 14/01/2019 through post as well as through notice server. The notice sent through notice server was received back undelivered

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)

3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. The penalty was imposed for concealment of material particulars of income of Rs. 20,70,000/-. Notices under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act, were issued on 11/12/2018 fixing the case for 14/01/2019 through post as well as through notice server. The notice sent through notice server was received back undelivered

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

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