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, the Assessing

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, the Assessing

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 142(1) dated 30.08.2019 the assessee was asked to submit some information/documents

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)

u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in levying a penalty of Rs. 66,38,400/- without specifying the limb of Section 271

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income were also initiated in respect of above mentioned addition and notice u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274

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

u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld.\nCommissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFA),\nDelhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to\nuphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in levying a penalty of Rs.\n66,38,400/- without specifying the limb of Section 271

HEALTH BIOTECH LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the disposal of the same.

u/s 271(1)(c) and then confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 6. That the appellant craves for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same. 3. Briefly, the facts

SURINDER SINGH RYAIT,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesse Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing Number: 09/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2017-18 Dt. 29/08/2019 Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2014 To 31/03/2015. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 That By An Order In First Appeal Bearing Number 09/It/Cit(A)- 5/Ldh/2017-18 Dt. 21/12/2018 The Ld. Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250(6) Of The Act Had Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Penalty Order Dt. 12/05/2017 Wherein Penalty Of Rs. 12,30,000/- Was Imposed On 2 The Assessee U/S 271Aab(1)(A). The 1St Appeal Of The Assessee Was Thus

penalty initiated as mentioned in in the notice is "have in a the notice U/s 274 r.w.s 271 dated statement under sub- 31.12.2016 issued by the Ld. A.O. section

INDER PAL SINGH LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED SATNAM SINGH 171789, STREET NO.8, GURU TEG BAHADUR JAGRAON,PUNJAB vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JAGRAON , PUNJAB

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

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

section 269ST reveals that it bars any 'person' from receiving an amount of Two lakh rupees or more (a) in aggregate from a person in a day; or (b) in respect of single transaction; or (c) in respect of transactions relating to one event or occasion from a person, otherwise than by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, AMBALA , AMBALA CANTT vs. SURINDER KUMAR VERMA , AMBALA

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.447/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito Ward-4 Shri Surinder Kumar Verma Aaykar Bhawan, B.C. Bazar बनाम/ Vs. H. No. 38, Kabir Nagar Ambala Cantt., Haryana - 133001 Ambala Cantt., Haryana - 133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acspv-3298-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 24-02-2024 Deleting Penalty Of Rs.70,53,886/- As Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 21-09-2015. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. The Ld. Sr. Dr Pleaded For Restoration Of Penalty As Levied By Ld. Ao. Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 1

penalty against the assessee. The ratio of decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) was applied wherein it was held that notice u/s 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271

AJMAIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: JUSTICE (RETD) C.V. BHADANG (President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) were initiated and notice u/s 271B read with Section 274 was issued to the assessee

VASDEV,SANGRUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

u/s 144 r/w 147 of the Act. Separately, while passing the assessment order, the AO also recorded his satisfaction that the assessee has willfully concealed particulars of his income and therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were separately initiated and notice under section 274

SATWINDER KAUR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

u/s. 271(1)(b) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the appellant on 28.11.2019 to show cause why an order imposing a penalty

RAM KUMAR,NEHRU GARDEN COLONY vs. ITO WARD 2, KAITHAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

274 read with section 271 of the Act, were issued on 11/12/2018 fixing the case for 14/01/2019 through post as well as through notice server. The notice sent through notice server was received back undelivered as per his notice report on said notice itself. Accordingly the said notice was served through Affixture on 26.12.2018 for compliance on 14/01/2019. On fixed

RAM KUMAR,NEHRU GARDEN COLONY vs. ITO WARD 2 KAITHAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, AMBALA ROAD KAITHAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

274 read with section 271 of the Act, were issued on 11/12/2018 fixing the case for 14/01/2019 through post as well as through notice server. The notice sent through notice server was received back undelivered as per his notice report on said notice itself. Accordingly the said notice was served through Affixture on 26.12.2018 for compliance on 14/01/2019. On fixed

AL RASHEED CHARITABLE SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. JCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 274\nr.w.s.271 of the Act dated 21.06.2019 was sent to the assessee. Again, the\nassessee did not respond to the said notice. Therefore, the AO was\nsatisfied that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its\nincome to the tune of Rs.7,01,67,544/- and thus it was a fit case for\nimposition of penalty u/s 271

OSHO FORGE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed and penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 523/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Osho Forge Ltd., Vs. Dcit, बनाम D-42, Phase V, Circle 1, Focal Point, Ludhiana, Ludhiana Punjab 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaco3362I अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sarabjit Garg, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024

section 271(1)(c) would be deemed to be representing the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. 11. In the light of the above, if we examine the facts then it would reveal that first addition is on account of difference in opinion between the Assessing Officer as well as the Assessee. The Assessee has neither

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AR has also submitted that the addition in the partner's capita! account of Rs. 50 lacs should be considered as explained under the unaccounted sales transactions of Rs. 42.80 lacs in the impounded documents and other discrepancies of Rs. 7.2 lacs found during the course