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. 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. 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. 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. 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

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

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

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

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

SHRI DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been confirmed. Thus, the present appeal is rejected. 16. Before parting with this order, we would like to take cognizance of Section 159 sub-clause (4) which has a bearing in this case. Therefore, we take note of sub-clause (4), which reads as under : “(4) Every legal representative shall

SH. DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been confirmed. Thus, the present appeal is rejected. 16. Before parting with this order, we would like to take cognizance of Section 159 sub-clause (4) which has a bearing in this case. Therefore, we take note of sub-clause (4), which reads as under : “(4) Every legal representative shall

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

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 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

SH. AASHISH ARORA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-3(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

u/s 144 whereby aforesaid additions made by the A.O. have been challenged. 4. The appellant craves the right to add, alter, amend any ground(s) of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. From the aforesaid ground it would be clear that the only grievance of the Assessee relates to the sustenance of penalty levied

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