DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act also provides that if a person fails to offer an explanation or explanation offered is found to be false by the Income-tax Authority or he fails to substantiate such explanation, and that fails to prove the such explanation is bonafide, then the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act also provides that if a person fails to offer an explanation or explanation offered is found to be false by the Income-tax Authority or he fails to substantiate such explanation, and that fails to prove the such explanation is bonafide, then the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act also provides that if a person fails to offer an explanation or explanation offered is found to be false by the Income-tax Authority or he fails to substantiate such explanation, and that fails to prove the such explanation is bonafide, then the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act also provides that if a person fails to offer an explanation or explanation offered is found to be false by the Income-tax Authority or he fails to substantiate such explanation, and that fails to prove the such explanation is bonafide, then the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act also provides that if a person fails to offer an explanation or explanation offered is found to be false by the Income-tax Authority or he fails to substantiate such explanation, and that fails to prove the such explanation is bonafide, then the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 on claim of deduction under section 80IC on the interest received on margin money of Rs. 220282/- Misc. receipt of Rs. 1,14,089/- and sundry balances written back Rs. 99/- which is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 4. Brief facts of the case: The assessee started

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 on claim of deduction under section 80IC on the interest received on margin money of Rs. 220282/- Misc. receipt of Rs. 1,14,089/- and sundry balances written back Rs. 99/- which is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 4. Brief facts of the case: The assessee started

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

227 CTR 635] where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Confirmed penalty upon assesses for concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) because positive income of assessee was reduced to nil after allowing set-off of carried forward losses of earlier years. 11.K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [[2001l 118 Taxman

M/S SHAHEED KARTAR SINGH SARABHA CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD.),LUDHIANA vs. CIT(A)-4, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 250(6) by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much as she was not justified to direct the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) at Rs. 11,98,68,227

M/S PIONEER PESTICIDES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Pioneer Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Sco 82-83, Sector 8-C, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing the particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. During the penalty proceedings, the Assessing officer issued show cause notice dated 17.9.2015 stating as to why the penalty be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. However

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HIMALAYAN EXPRESSWAY LTD., PINJORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T.Act: 1. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors T(2007) 295 ITR 2441 AS RELIED UPON BY THE AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability

M/S SINGH CONSTRUCTION CO.,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

227/- paid as salary and interest to the partners of the firm should be considered as profit of the firm. The assessee's contention that the credit should be given for salary and interest paid to partners is not tenable and cannot be considered in the fresh assessment order since only issues prejudicial to the interest of revenue is considered

H.M. STEELS LTD.,SANGRUR vs. ACIT, SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

227 ITR 557 (SC). 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the income from Deferred VAT Rebate received by the assessee is allowed to be included as profits derived from industrial undertaking and eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee received it from

DCIT, SANGRUR vs. M/S H.M. STEEL LTD., SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

227 ITR 557 (SC). 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the income from Deferred VAT Rebate received by the assessee is allowed to be included as profits derived from industrial undertaking and eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee received it from

H.M. STEELS LTD.,SANGRUR vs. ACIT, SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

227 ITR 557 (SC). 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the income from Deferred VAT Rebate received by the assessee is allowed to be included as profits derived from industrial undertaking and eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee received it from

M/S H.M. STEEL LTD.,SANGRUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

227 ITR 557 (SC). 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the income from Deferred VAT Rebate received by the assessee is allowed to be included as profits derived from industrial undertaking and eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee received it from

ACIT, SANGRUR vs. M/S H.M.STEELS LTD, DIRBA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

227 ITR 557 (SC). 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the income from Deferred VAT Rebate received by the assessee is allowed to be included as profits derived from industrial undertaking and eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee received it from

DCIT, SANGRUR vs. M/S H.M. STEEL LTD., SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

227 ITR 557 (SC). 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the income from Deferred VAT Rebate received by the assessee is allowed to be included as profits derived from industrial undertaking and eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee received it from