DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our view, clause (c) to Explanation 4 is a residuary clause and can not be segregated and independently interpreted in divorce to clauses (a) or (b) of Explanation 4 to give giving it an entirely different meaning and any such an interpretation, will not be a correct interpretation of the statutory provision

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our view, clause (c) to Explanation 4 is a residuary clause and can not be segregated and independently interpreted in divorce to clauses (a) or (b) of Explanation 4 to give giving it an entirely different meaning and any such an interpretation, will not be a correct interpretation of the statutory provision

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our view, clause (c) to Explanation 4 is a residuary clause and can not be segregated and independently interpreted in divorce to clauses (a) or (b) of Explanation 4 to give giving it an entirely different meaning and any such an interpretation, will not be a correct interpretation of the statutory provision

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our view, clause (c) to Explanation 4 is a residuary clause and can not be segregated and independently interpreted in divorce to clauses (a) or (b) of Explanation 4 to give giving it an entirely different meaning and any such an interpretation, will not be a correct interpretation of the statutory provision

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our view, clause (c) to Explanation 4 is a residuary clause and can not be segregated and independently interpreted in divorce to clauses (a) or (b) of Explanation 4 to give giving it an entirely different meaning and any such an interpretation, will not be a correct interpretation of the statutory provision

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)

penalty under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of this section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income]” A plain reading of the above explanation shows that if the income declared by the assessee after search, in response to notice u/s 153A, which was not declared by the assessee earlier

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

27,600/-. On being confronted with the same the assessee explained the source of investment as being out of the surrendered income of Rs.28 lacs. The Assessing Officer noted that the surrender was made after detection of concealment by the Department by way of search u/s 132 of the Act and therefore initiated penalty proceedings on the same u/s 271

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

27,600/-. On being confronted with the same the assessee explained the source of investment as being out of the surrendered income of Rs.28 lacs. The Assessing Officer noted that the surrender was made after detection of concealment by the Department by way of search u/s 132 of the Act and therefore initiated penalty proceedings on the same u/s 271

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

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)

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 219 2,00,000 32 11/5/2017 To Cash 224 2,00,000 33 12/5/2017 To Cash 229 2,00,000 34 13/5/2017 To Cash

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,SHIMLA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 271CA of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ankita Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) had held that when the additions in respect of which penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act was levied, are challenged in appeal before

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,NAHAN vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 271CA of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ankita Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) had held that when the additions in respect of which penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act was levied, are challenged in appeal before

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,NAHAN vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 271CA of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ankita Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) had held that when the additions in respect of which penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act was levied, are challenged in appeal before

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,SHIMLA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 271CA of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ankita Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) had held that when the additions in respect of which penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act was levied, are challenged in appeal before

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.

u/s 132 but the assessee declares such income in the return of income & pays the tax together with interest on or before the specified date, then penalty @ 20% of the undisclosed income is leviable as per section 271AAB(l)(b). In other cases, not covered under clause (a) and clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271AAB, penalty

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

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 and that shown in the return of income , being attributed to gross receipts not declared in the return

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)

section 40(a)(ii)of the Income Tax Act, 1961.. 3. 20.11.2018 u/s 250(6) The CIT(A) has confirmed the addition.As the assessee has not filed any appeal with regard to CIT(A) order. Hence, the addition has attained finality. 4. 29.06.2017 u/s 271(l)(c) Penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.8