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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, illegal, without jurisdiction and void. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A), Shimla has erred in affirming the order of the Ld. Dy. CIT, Circle Parwanoo, HP in imposing the penalty under section 271

M/S HAPPY STEEL PRIVATE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahay

250(6) by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much ITA 398/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 2 as he was not justified to arbitrarily uphold the levy of penalty u/s 271AAB(1) at Rs. 2,50,000/-. 2. That levy of penalty and upholding the same

M/S HAPPY STEEL PRIVATE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 397/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S Happy Steels Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम B-Xxix, 2254, Central Circle-2, Kanganwal Road, Ludhiana P.O. Jugiana, Ludhiana 141120 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaach6019D अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in, as much as he was not justified to arbitrarily uphold the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) at Rs. 3,80,242/- 2. That levy of penalty and upholding the same is bad in law in as much

ANJALI SAINI,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO-WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961 by the Ld CIT (A) in First Appeal. Therefore, the present second appeal under section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before us against the aforesaid order dated 15.11.2022 which is hereinafter referred to as the impugned order. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. That the Asssessee Smt. Anjali Saini filed her income

THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in levying a penalty of Rs. 66,38,400/- without specifying the limb of Section 271

M/S SEL TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, theappeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.695/Chd/2018 धििागरणवर्ग / Assessment Year :2014-15 बिाम M/S Sel Textiles Limited, The Dcit, 273-74,G.T. Road, Central Circle-Iii, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana Ludhiana स्थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aancs0401M अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent धििागररतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राजस्वकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh. Ram Mohan, Cit Dr सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2019 उदघोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2019 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg:

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271AAB at ₹ 4,31,99,747/- is against law and facts on the file in as much as no such penalty was exigible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to arbitrarily uphold the penalty levied u/s 271AAB at Rs. 5,00,000/-.” In all other appeals similar grounds has been raised and only difference

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to arbitrarily uphold the penalty levied u/s 271AAB at Rs. 5,00,000/-.” In all other appeals similar grounds has been raised and only difference

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to arbitrarily uphold the penalty levied u/s 271AAB at Rs. 5,00,000/-.” In all other appeals similar grounds has been raised and only difference

SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Us Challenging The Levy Of Penalty Both On Legal Ground As Well As On Merits Of The Case :

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short referred to as ‘Act’), confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us challenging the levy of penalty both on legal ground as well as on merits of the case : “1. That the notice U/s

AKM RESORTS,MOHALI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

250 of the Act. The relevant assessment year is 2016-17 and the ITA 42/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 2 corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 The brief facts of the case as per order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 25.06.2019 hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Penalty Order

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) read with 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

SH. SATPAL GOSAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short referred to as ‘Act’), confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The facts of the case are that during the course of reassessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that a housing society consisting of 95 present and ex MLAs of Punjab Legislative Assembly

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)

250 2,00,000 39 18/5/2017 To Cash 254 2,00,000 40 19/5/2017 To Cash 258 2,00,000 41 15/2/2018 To Cash 1039 2,00,000 42 16/2/2018 To Cash 1042 2,00,000 43 17/2/2018 To Cash 1045 2,00,000 44 18/2/2018 To Cash '1048 2,00,000 45 19/2/2018 To Cash

ASPEE SONS,SOLAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO, PARWANOO

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 5,66,616/- in respect of denial of deduction u/s 80IC on interest income

HEALTH BIOTECH LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the disposal of the same.

250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 69,68,581/- on alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income added

M/S CORE METAL KRAFTS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-5(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

250(6) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter A.Y. 2013-14 Page 2 of 9 referred to as ‘Act’), confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Earlier the appeal of the assessee was dismissed for non prosecution by the Tribunal vide order dated 11.06.2018 and the same was recalled thereafter vide order

M/S HERITAGE MARKETING,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-3(2), CHANDIGARH

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Heritage Marketing Vs. The Ito Sco-64, F.F., Sector-20-C Ward-3(2), Dakshin Marg, Chandigarh Chandigarh

250(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961,(hereinafter referred to as “Act”) , confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Act. 2. Penalty in the present case has been levied on the addition made to the income of the assessee on account of difference in the Tax Deducted at Source(in short “TDS”) as reflected in Form No.26AS

MANPREET SINGH BHULLAR,PARWANOO vs. ITO, PARWANOO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs. 77,393,/-. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: The appellant is an individual and during the assessment year 2007-08, he was carrying on the business of manufacturing of paper tubes, cartons, wrappers and printing