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

OSHO FORGE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed and penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 523/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Osho Forge Ltd., Vs. Dcit, बनाम D-42, Phase V, Circle 1, Focal Point, Ludhiana, Ludhiana Punjab 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaco3362I अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sarabjit Garg, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024

Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was carried out on the Assessee on 26.8.2008. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the Assessee has filed return of income declaring an income

M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 125/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Valco Industries Ltd., Vs The Dcit, Sco 37, Sector 26, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacv5195J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Monga, Ca Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is bad in law in as much as the date of order as per the impugned order is 19.03.2020 and which has been signed without mentioning of a DIN. As per the separate order, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has mentioned

BALDEV SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARDS 1, FATEHBAD

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 813/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Baldev Singh, Vs. The Ito, बनाम M/S Baldev Singh Jarnail Ward-1, Singh, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad Dharsul Kalan, Tehsil Tohana, Fatehabad

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme

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.

271(1)(c) levying penalty amounting to Rs. 59,249/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which on appeal has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and against the said findings, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, complete details of both

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme

ACIT, C-6, LUDHIANA vs. M/S ARADHANA FABRICS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

249 of the Income Tax Act; that the assessee had filed the appeal after more than 30 days of service of the demand notice; and that hence, penalty u/s 271(1)(c)of the Act was being imposed on the assessee “in view of delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)”. This finding

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

271 | 94 | Non-Resident\n| | 07-01-2017\n31.03.2017 | 83 | | |\n| 2017-18 | 01.04.2017\n18-07-2017 | 108 | 328 | 37 | Non-Resident\n\n| | 23-08-2017\n31.03.2018 | 220 | | |\n| 2018-19 | 01.04.2018\n31-03-2019 | 365 | 365 | 0 | Non-Resident\n| | 01-04-2019\n09-07-2019 | 99 | | |\n| 2019-20 | | 323 | 43 | Non-Resident

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

271 | 94 | Non-Resident |\n| | 10-08-2016 | 16-12-2016 | 127 | | | |\n| | 07-01-2017 | 31.03.2017 | 83 | | | |\n| 2017-18 | 01.04.2017 | 18-07-2017 | 108 | 328 | 37 | Non-Resident |\n| | 23-08-2017 | 31.03.2018 | 220 | | | |\n| 2018-19 | 01.04.2018 | 31-03-2019 | 365 | 365 | 0 | Non-Resident

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

271 | 94 | Non-Resident\n| | 07-01-2017 | 31.03.2017 | 83 | | | \n| 2017-18 | 01.04.2017 | 18-07-2017 | 108 | 328 | 37 | Non-Resident\n\n| | 23-08-2017 | 31.03.2018 | 220 | | | \n| 2018-19 | 01.04.2018 | 31-03-2019 | 365 | 365 | 0 | Non-Resident

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections\nare dismissed

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides\npowers to the 1d. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing\nthe appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been\nused in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever\ninterpretation and construction of this expression has fallen\nfor consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before\nthe Hon'ble Supreme

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

section 133(6) the party denied to had any transaction or job work done for the assessee. 8 Sonu Rs.49,775/- Cash Letter issued u/s 133(6) received unserved Engineering Works with the remarks of the post man that "no such person existing at the given address." Above facts were confronted to the assesseee for his comments and explanation

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

section 133(6) the party denied to had any transaction or job work done for the assessee. 8 Sonu Rs.49,775/- Cash Letter issued u/s 133(6) received unserved Engineering Works with the remarks of the post man that "no such person existing at the given address." Above facts were confronted to the assesseee for his comments and explanation

GURMELO DEVI,JAGADHARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, YUMNANAGAR

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

3. That A.O. acting under information from inves tigation wing no independent application of m ind not amount to formation of belief. Is bad-i n-law. 4. That Ld. ITO has wrongly initiated penalty pro ceedings u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) AND 271F o f the Income Tax A ct,1961. 5. The Assessee reserves the right

THE SAHA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,AMBALA vs. ITO, WARD-4, AMBALA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has filed three appeals against quantum proceedings for assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 and three appeals against penalty u/s 271(l)(c) for the same years against the ex-parte orders of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)NFAC. The Ld.CIT(Appeals) NFAC dismissed

THE SAHA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,AMBALA vs. ITO, WARD-4, AMBALA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has filed three appeals against quantum proceedings for assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 and three appeals against penalty u/s 271(l)(c) for the same years against the ex-parte orders of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)NFAC. The Ld.CIT(Appeals) NFAC dismissed

THE SAHA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,AMBALA vs. ITO, WARD-4, AMBALA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has filed three appeals against quantum proceedings for assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 and three appeals against penalty u/s 271(l)(c) for the same years against the ex-parte orders of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)NFAC. The Ld.CIT(Appeals) NFAC dismissed