THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,NAHAN vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

206(1C) of the Act and the fact that the provisions of section 271CA have been inserted by the Finance Act 2006 w.e.f. 1.4.2007, it was held that the ITA Nos. 903 to 905-Chd-2019 - Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner Nahan & Othrs 5 assessee was in default for non-collection of Tax at Source and accordingly, he levied penalty

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,SHIMLA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

206(1C) of the Act and the fact that the provisions of section 271CA have been inserted by the Finance Act 2006 w.e.f. 1.4.2007, it was held that the ITA Nos. 903 to 905-Chd-2019 - Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner Nahan & Othrs 5 assessee was in default for non-collection of Tax at Source and accordingly, he levied penalty

PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

206 C(7) and penalty u/s 271CA of the Act, as the case may be. The Hon'ble High Court further held that terminal point for calculation of the interest / penalty payable has to be taken as the date on which the assessee was liable to collect tax i.e. the date of payment till the date on which the Concessionaire

PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

206 C(7) and penalty u/s 271CA of the Act, as the case may be. The Hon'ble High Court further held that terminal point for calculation of the interest / penalty payable has to be taken as the date on which the assessee was liable to collect tax i.e. the date of payment till the date on which the Concessionaire

M/S PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

206 C(7) and penalty u/s 271CA of the Act, as the case may be. The Hon'ble High Court further held that terminal point for calculation of the interest / penalty payable has to be taken as the date on which the assessee was liable to collect tax i.e. the date of payment till the date on which the Concessionaire

M/S PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

206 C(7) and penalty u/s 271CA of the Act, as the case may be. The Hon'ble High Court further held that terminal point for calculation of the interest / penalty payable has to be taken as the date on which the assessee was liable to collect tax i.e. the date of payment till the date on which the Concessionaire

PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

206 C(7) and penalty u/s 271CA of the Act, as the case may be. The Hon'ble High Court further held that terminal point for calculation of the interest / penalty payable has to be taken as the date on which the assessee was liable to collect tax i.e. the date of payment till the date on which the Concessionaire

PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

206 C(7) and penalty u/s 271CA of the Act, as the case may be. The Hon'ble High Court further held that terminal point for calculation of the interest / penalty payable has to be taken as the date on which the assessee was liable to collect tax i.e. the date of payment till the date on which the Concessionaire

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)

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

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

KALANEEDHI JEWELLERS LLP,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB are being initiated on this undisclosed income. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A)and furnished the written submissions which are incorporated in para 3 of the impugned order and read as under: "“Sub: Written Submission in the case of M/s. Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, House No. 123C, Model Town, Patiala

SSMT. CHARU AGGARWAL,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB are being initiated on this undisclosed income. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A)and furnished the written submissions which are incorporated in para 3 of the impugned order and read as under: "“Sub: Written Submission in the case of M/s. Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, House No. 123C, Model Town, Patiala

DHUNI CHAND 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

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

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, 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

SH. PARAMJEET 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

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