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)

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 tax return disclosing Income of Rs. 4,44,152/- on 21.06.2012 for AY 2011-12 wherein her Postal Address was # 22, Jain Nagar, Ambala

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

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

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)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is aggrieved by the Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056979491(1) dated 11/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is hereinafter referred to as “impugned order”. Brief Factual Matrix 2. In the instant case, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee

SH. SATPAL GOSAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

253, 254, 278 and 398 of 2014 vide order dated 22.07.2015 has held as under: "As per the order of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court " it was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee-appellant that whatever amount was received from the developer, capital gains tax has already been paid on that and sale deeds have also been

M/S COLOUR COTTEX PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-5(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

3) of the Act dated 08.11.2016 at an assessed income of Rs. 36,77,200/- as against returned income of Rs.28,08,270/-. While completing the assessment in this case, the Assessing Officer has made addition on account of disallowance of ROC Expenses of Rs.6,02,000/-the to the returned income of the assessee company. Penalty proceedings under section

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2018 of the ld. CIT(A) passed in respect of appeal No. 10085/17-18/A.Y. 2014-15 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”. ITA 126/CHD/2019 ITA 103/CHD/2019 ITA 125/CHD/2019 ITA 44/CHD/2021 3 3. The core issue before the ld. CIT(A) and before

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2018 of the ld. CIT(A) passed in respect of appeal No. 10085/17-18/A.Y. 2014-15 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”. ITA 126/CHD/2019 ITA 103/CHD/2019 ITA 125/CHD/2019 ITA 44/CHD/2021 3 3. The core issue before the ld. CIT(A) and before

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2018 of the ld. CIT(A) passed in respect of appeal No. 10085/17-18/A.Y. 2014-15 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”. ITA 126/CHD/2019 ITA 103/CHD/2019 ITA 125/CHD/2019 ITA 44/CHD/2021 3 3. The core issue before the ld. CIT(A) and before

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2018 of the ld. CIT(A) passed in respect of appeal No. 10085/17-18/A.Y. 2014-15 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”. ITA 126/CHD/2019 ITA 103/CHD/2019 ITA 125/CHD/2019 ITA 44/CHD/2021 3 3. The core issue before the ld. CIT(A) and before

MANPREET SINGH BHULLAR,PARWANOO vs. ITO, PARWANOO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

253 ITR 630 (P&H) In view of above submissions, it is prayed that the penalty of ' 77,393/-imposed by the Ld. A.O. under s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 may kindly be waived. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee sustained the penalty by observing as under

SURINDER SINGH RYAIT,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesse Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing Number: 09/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2017-18 Dt. 29/08/2019 Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2014 To 31/03/2015. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 That By An Order In First Appeal Bearing Number 09/It/Cit(A)- 5/Ldh/2017-18 Dt. 21/12/2018 The Ld. Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250(6) Of The Act Had Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Penalty Order Dt. 12/05/2017 Wherein Penalty Of Rs. 12,30,000/- Was Imposed On 2 The Assessee U/S 271Aab(1)(A). The 1St Appeal Of The Assessee Was Thus

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for sake of brevity and ease) before this Tribunal. The assesse is aggrieved by the order bearing number: 09/IT/CIT(A)-5/LDH/2017-18 dt. 29/08/2019 passed under section 154 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

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

section 271(1)(c) which is not correct because the assessee has deliberately furnished the inaccurate particular of its income to evade payment of taxes. 2. It is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

RAM KUMAR,NEHRU GARDEN COLONY vs. ITO WARD 2, KAITHAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. The penalty was imposed for concealment of material particulars of income of Rs. 20,70,000/-. Notices under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act, were issued on 11/12/2018 fixing the case for 14/01/2019 through post as well as through notice server. The notice sent through notice server was received back undelivered

RAM KUMAR,NEHRU GARDEN COLONY vs. ITO WARD 2 KAITHAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, AMBALA ROAD KAITHAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. The penalty was imposed for concealment of material particulars of income of Rs. 20,70,000/-. Notices under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act, were issued on 11/12/2018 fixing the case for 14/01/2019 through post as well as through notice server. The notice sent through notice server was received back undelivered

AL RASHEED CHARITABLE SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. JCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

253 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) as and by way of\nsecond appeal. The assessee is aggrieved by order bearing number\nITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054714788(1) dated 28/07/2023 of CIT(A)\nunder section 250 of the Act passed in First Appeal u/s 246A of the Act\nwhich is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant

DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH vs. VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., , CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Punjab & Haryana High Court? Ii) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Is Right Holding Such Consequential Order As Void An Initio Ignoring The Facts That Order Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Gurugram U/S 263 Has Not Attained Its Finality? Iii) Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Holding That Consequential Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 263 Of The Act As Void As Initio Without Giving Any Liberty To The Revenue To Revive The Proceedings Consequent To Any Directions Or Order

253-2022(O&M) & ITA No. 118-2023 dated 17/07/2024 and a copy of the said decision has been placed on record as part of the assessee’s paperbook pages 16-23. 11. Having heard the rival contentions in the light of the material placed on record, we find the order passed by the Id. CIT(A) to be well

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 25. The Assessee feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the AO’s order dt. 26/12/2016 had filed first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order has dismissed the same. The core finding of CIT(A) is as follows