DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 26. Even otherwise, a perusal of clause (iii) to section 271(1) reveals that as per the relevant provisions, the Assessing officer may direct a person who as per clause (c) has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to pay by way of penalty

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 26. Even otherwise, a perusal of clause (iii) to section 271(1) reveals that as per the relevant provisions, the Assessing officer may direct a person who as per clause (c) has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to pay by way of penalty

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 26. Even otherwise, a perusal of clause (iii) to section 271(1) reveals that as per the relevant provisions, the Assessing officer may direct a person who as per clause (c) has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to pay by way of penalty

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 26. Even otherwise, a perusal of clause (iii) to section 271(1) reveals that as per the relevant provisions, the Assessing officer may direct a person who as per clause (c) has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to pay by way of penalty

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 26. Even otherwise, a perusal of clause (iii) to section 271(1) reveals that as per the relevant provisions, the Assessing officer may direct a person who as per clause (c) has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to pay by way of penalty

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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the same the assessee has come up in appeal before us raising the following effective ground: “1. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty 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

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 271(1

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

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 271(1

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

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

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). 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A)fell into grave error by confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. 2. The Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’), while imposing penalty in question, vide order dated 15.10.2019, observed as follows : "Vide notice 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

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

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

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)

u/s. 271 read with section 271(1)(b) of the act vide notices dated 15.11.2019,14.06.2021,15.07.2021 and 03.09.2021 were issued to show cause as to why 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

Section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not\nthe intendment of the Legislature.”\n14.\nIn light of aforesaid discussions and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of\nthe case and respectfully following the decision supra, the levy 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

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 271 (1

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 is justified. 9. CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd [183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/[2010] 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/[2009] 226 CTR A.Y. 2012-13 Page 9 of 18 105]where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that if claim made in return of income appears to be ex facie bogus, it would