DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied the penalty u/s

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied the penalty u/s

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied the penalty u/s

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied the penalty u/s

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied the penalty u/s

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 u/s 271(1)© of the Act, stating that the surrender was covered only in the year of search or the preceding year of which return was due but not filed by the assessee, and the impugned year being neither, the assessee was not entitled to claim immunity of the surrender granted by virtue of the provisions of section

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds are admitted for adjudication. 10. We shall first deal with the additional grounds raised since they challenge the jurisdiction to pass the penalty order. 11. In the context of the additional grounds raised, the Ld. counsel for assessee contended that the penalty notice issued u/s 274 read with section

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds are admitted for adjudication. 10. We shall first deal with the additional grounds raised since they challenge the jurisdiction to pass the penalty order. 11. In the context of the additional grounds raised, the Ld. counsel for assessee contended that the penalty notice issued u/s 274 read with section

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

section 271(1)(c) as it has neither concealed any particulars of income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee has relied on various case laws to support his case as per the record. The relevant extracts of the same are reproduced as under:- 10. In support of the appellant's contention that penalty u/s

DCIT, PARWANOO vs. M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS, SOLAN

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

section 271(1)(c) as it has neither concealed any particulars of income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee has relied on various case laws to support his case as per the record. The relevant extracts of the same are reproduced as under:- 10. In support of the appellant's contention that penalty u/s

JARNAIL SINGH GILL,JAGRAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JAGRAON

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

Bench: The Tribunal & The Matter Was Remanded Back To Ao For Fresh Adjudication. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed

271(l)(b) for non compliance of notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The details of the notices issued under section 142(1) as reproduced by the AO in para 1 of the penalty order are as under:- Notice u/s

SH RAMESH KUMAR DUDANI,MOHALI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE -6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the reply given vide letter dt. 30/05/2019 (copy of which is placed at page no. 16 & 17 of the assessee’s paper book) was as under: “F.No:DCIT/Circle6(1)/Mohali/2019-20/178 Dated: 30.05.2019 To Sh. Ramesh Dudani C-104, I.A., Phase-7, Mohali. Sir, Sub: Calculation in respect of penalty u/s

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

271(1)(c) at Rs. 3,80,242/- 2. That levy of penalty and upholding the same is bad in law in as much as no specific charge has been made out while issuing the penalty notice and while levying penalty u/s Section

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

u/s 271 AAB of the Act may be levied @ 7 0/20/'30% since the assessee falls in Clauses (a)/(b)/(c) of section 271 AAB of the Act. He should have further mentioned that as the assesseee's case falls under Clause-c of section 271AAB of the Act, why he should not be visited by the penalty

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)

Section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature.” 14. In light of aforesaid discussions and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the decision supra, the levy of penalty u/s

M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD.,KHARAR vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

penalty order u/s 271 AAA r.w. section 274 as passed by the Assessing Officer vide order, dated 28.09.2017, wherein

ACIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD., KHARAR

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

penalty order u/s 271 AAA r.w. section 274 as passed by the Assessing Officer vide order, dated 28.09.2017, wherein

ACIT,CC-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD., KHARAR

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

penalty order u/s 271 AAA r.w. section 274 as passed by the Assessing Officer vide order, dated 28.09.2017, wherein