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

270 sq.yd. each situated at Moja Barewal Awaria, Ashapuri, Ludhiana for Rs.27,27,600/-. 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

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

270 sq.yd. each situated at Moja Barewal Awaria, Ashapuri, Ludhiana for Rs.27,27,600/-. 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

SH. PAWAN SAHNI,SOLAN vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

270) was surrendered by the assessee as under: Shri Pawan Sahni (assessee) Rs.15,00,000/- Shri Girish Sahni Rs. 2,50,000/- Shri Manoj Sahni Rs. 5,50,000/- 10. The offer of the additional income was made in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act which was accepted also by the Revenue. However,, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of income

SH. SWARAN SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Guptash.Swaran Singh, Vs. The D.C.I.T., H.No.2449-50, Central Circle-1, Near Aroma, Sector 22, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. Pan: Acgps6676J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271AAA of the Act are attracted only in case of surrender of income during search operation. The addition in this case was made during the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and in view of this, penalty, if any, was attracted that could have been levied u/s 271

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)

271(1) (b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was also issued vide letter No.763 dated 17.8.2009 for non-furnishing of information. In all these cases, hearing was fixed on 19.8.2009. On this date, the assessee furnished reply, vide letter dated 17.8.2009 of its CA, Sh.Manoj Gupta vide which it furnished some of the addresses of the account holders

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)

271(1) (b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was also issued vide letter No.763 dated 17.8.2009 for non-furnishing of information. In all these cases, hearing was fixed on 19.8.2009. On this date, the assessee furnished reply, vide letter dated 17.8.2009 of its CA, Sh.Manoj Gupta vide which it furnished some of the addresses of the account holders

IPF VIKRAM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA

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

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

u/s 143(3) on 29.09.2016 and as such upholding of reopening on wrong facts is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in directing the assessing officer to verify the payment of Rs.18,63,488/- with the due dates of the Employees contribution on the basis of decision

M/S INTERNATIONAL FRESH FARM PRODUCTS (INDIA) LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 1150 are exempt u/s 10(34). Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) is not a dividend declared by the domestic company u/s 1150 of the I.T. Act. 4.14 Thus the facts of the case are as follows: 1. The assessee company has received loan of Rs.l 1,00,000/- during the year from a company i.e. M/S Punjab Metallic

BHUVNESHWARI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MANDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, MANDI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

270 days. Separate applications for condonation of delay have been filed. It has been pleaded in the applications that in the impugned order of the CIT(A) dated 21.6.2017 passed in relation to the imposition of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), in the last lines / conclusion has mentioned that the appeal

BHUVNESHWARI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MANDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, MANDI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

270 days. Separate applications for condonation of delay have been filed. It has been pleaded in the applications that in the impugned order of the CIT(A) dated 21.6.2017 passed in relation to the imposition of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), in the last lines / conclusion has mentioned that the appeal

M/S NECTAR LIFESCIENCE LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 despite the fact that complete information was disclosed and nothing was concealed. 5. The assessee craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the objections herein or at any further grounds as may be considered necessary and to submit such statement/documents and papers

SSMT. CHARU AGGARWAL,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

271 (SC) • CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 248 CTR 33 (Del.) • Infomediary India (P) Ltd. and Ors. Vs CIT 206 Taxman 254 • CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) 6.3 It was stated before the Ld. CIT(A) that the A.O. had not disputed, the entire purchase and sales of the assessee, books of accounts

KALANEEDHI JEWELLERS LLP,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

271 (SC) • CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 248 CTR 33 (Del.) • Infomediary India (P) Ltd. and Ors. Vs CIT 206 Taxman 254 • CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) 6.3 It was stated before the Ld. CIT(A) that the A.O. had not disputed, the entire purchase and sales of the assessee, books of accounts

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page 219-220, Notes on clauses to Finance Bill

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page 219-220, Notes on clauses to Finance Bill

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page 219-220, Notes on clauses to Finance Bill

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page 219-220, Notes on clauses to Finance Bill

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page 219-220, Notes on clauses to Finance Bill