DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act reveals that there are two parts of this section. The first part speaks about the charge which may invite penalty i.e. a person has concealed ‘particulars’ of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, he may be directed to pay certain sum by way of penalty as penalty. Now, the second part speaks

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

271(1)(c) of the Act reveals that there are two parts of this section. The first part speaks about the charge which may invite penalty i.e. a person has concealed ‘particulars’ of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, he may be directed to pay certain sum by way of penalty as penalty. Now, the second part speaks

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act reveals that there are two parts of this section. The first part speaks about the charge which may invite penalty i.e. a person has concealed ‘particulars’ of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, he may be directed to pay certain sum by way of penalty as penalty. Now, the second part speaks

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act reveals that there are two parts of this section. The first part speaks about the charge which may invite penalty i.e. a person has concealed ‘particulars’ of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, he may be directed to pay certain sum by way of penalty as penalty. Now, the second part speaks

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act reveals that there are two parts of this section. The first part speaks about the charge which may invite penalty i.e. a person has concealed ‘particulars’ of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, he may be directed to pay certain sum by way of penalty as penalty. Now, the second part speaks

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)

u/s 153A is accepted no penalty is leviable. Ld.CIT(A) has, we find, distinguished the case laws relied upon by the assessee in support of its aforesaid contention, as not having been rendered in the context of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) and hence not applicable in the facts of the present case. Ld Counsel for the assessee

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

u/s 153A is accepted no penalty is leviable. Ld.CIT(A) has, we find, distinguished the case laws relied upon by the assessee in support of its aforesaid contention, as not having been rendered in the context of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) and hence not applicable in the facts of the present case. Ld Counsel for the assessee

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

u/s 153A is accepted no penalty is leviable. Ld.CIT(A) has, we find, distinguished the case laws relied upon by the assessee in support of its aforesaid contention, as not having been rendered in the context of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) and hence not applicable in the facts of the present case. Ld Counsel for the assessee

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)

Section 271(1)(b); that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A)fell into grave error by confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. 7. The penalty in question was imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act vide order dated

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

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

u/s 271(l)(c) is against the well-established norms, case laws and jurisprudence of penalty under the Income Tax Act and against various judicial pronouncements. 9. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case where the assessee declared the income under the head Income From House Property but the revenue has assessed

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

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

u/s 271(l)(c) is against the well-established norms, case laws and jurisprudence of penalty under the Income Tax Act and against various judicial pronouncements. 9. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case where the assessee declared the income under the head Income From House Property but the revenue has assessed

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

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

u/s 271(l)(c) is against the well-established norms, case laws and jurisprudence of penalty under the Income Tax Act and against various judicial pronouncements. 9. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case where the assessee declared the income under the head Income From House Property but the revenue has assessed

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

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

u/s 271(l)(c) is against the well-established norms, case laws and jurisprudence of penalty under the Income Tax Act and against various judicial pronouncements. 9. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case where the assessee declared the income under the head Income From House Property but the revenue has assessed

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

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

u/s 271(l)(c) is against the well-established norms, case laws and jurisprudence of penalty under the Income Tax Act and against various judicial pronouncements. 9. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case where the assessee declared the income under the head Income From House Property but the revenue has assessed

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

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

u/s 271(l)(c) is against the well-established norms, case laws and jurisprudence of penalty under the Income Tax Act and against various judicial pronouncements. 9. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case where the assessee declared the income under the head Income From House Property but the revenue has assessed

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

INDER PAL SINGH LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED SATNAM SINGH 171789, STREET NO.8, GURU TEG BAHADUR JAGRAON,PUNJAB vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JAGRAON , PUNJAB

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

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

24 24/4/2017 To Cash 160 2,00,000 25 25/4/2017 To Cash 163 2,00,000 26 26/4/2017 To Cash 172 2,00,000 27 27/4/2017 To Cash 175 2,00,000 28 28/4/2017 To Cash 178 2,00,000 29 29/4/2017 To Cash 183 2,00,000 30 30/4/2017 To Gash 186 2,00,000 31 10/5/2017 To Cash

PALACE INFRATECH PVT LTD,LUDHIANA vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect o f the undisclosed income referred to in sub- section (1). (3) The provisions o f sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation- For the purposes o f this section,- (a) "specified date" means