DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of authorities below and cancel the penalty. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 10. The issue of levy of penalty on this issue under appeal is squarely covered by the order of the ITAT referred supra. Following the same, the levy

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of authorities below and cancel the penalty. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 10. The issue of levy of penalty on this issue under appeal is squarely covered by the order of the ITAT referred supra. Following the same, the levy

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

u/s 263 of the Act relating to assessment year 2011-12 on identical issue of levy of penalty for such year, which the AO had not levied ,on account of which the Ld.CIT had held the order to be erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, referring to the said order ,stated that for the said

AKM RESORTS,MOHALI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 2.7 Basis above premises, the ld. AO concluded that assessee is liable to penal action on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and default has been committed by the assessee within the meaning of Section 271(1

SH. PARMINDER SINGH MAVI,MORINDA vs. ITO, ROPAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as “Act”) respectively

MANPREET SINGH BHULLAR,PARWANOO vs. ITO, PARWANOO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) for concealment which was upheld by CIT(A). On further appeal Tribunal reversed the orders and cancelled the penalty. On revenue appeal, the High Court upheld the decision of Tribunal holding that where penalty is imposed in respect of an addition where High Court has admitted appeal as substantial question of law, then sustainability

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

u/s 143(2). We find that such notice was duly served through Affixture and no error could be found. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. 13. As far as penalty appeal is concerned, before we embark upon an enquiry on the facts of the present case and to consider whether assessee deserves

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

u/s 143(2). We find that such notice was duly served through Affixture and no error could be found. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. 13. As far as penalty appeal is concerned, before we embark upon an enquiry on the facts of the present case and to consider whether assessee deserves

RAJESH SHARMA,THEOG vs. ITO, W-2, SHIMLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1438/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) and submitted as under: 3 A.Y.2014-15 “The present appeal has been preferred against the impositions of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Rs. 1,23,600/-. In that regard, it is submitted that during the course of assessment

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)

d) of section 13(1) can be charged to tax at Maximum Marginal Rate as per provisions of section 164(2) of the IT Act, 1961on account of rent, in that case only the tax can be levied on that said disallowance, if any and the tax can be charged at the maximum marginal rate as provided in section

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)

d) of section 13(1) can be charged to tax at Maximum Marginal Rate as per provisions of section 164(2) of the IT Act, 1961on account of rent, in that case only the tax can be levied on that said disallowance, if any and the tax can be charged at the maximum marginal rate as provided in section

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)

d) of section 13(1) can be charged to tax at Maximum Marginal Rate as per provisions of section 164(2) of the IT Act, 1961on account of rent, in that case only the tax can be levied on that said disallowance, if any and the tax can be charged at the maximum marginal rate as provided in section