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

u/s 271 AAA r.w. section 274 as passed by the Assessing Officer vide order, dated 28.09.2017, wherein, the Assessing officer has levied a penalty of Rs. 2

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

u/s 271 AAA r.w. section 274 as passed by the Assessing Officer vide order, dated 28.09.2017, wherein, the Assessing officer has levied a penalty of Rs. 2

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

u/s 271 AAA r.w. section 274 as passed by the Assessing Officer vide order, dated 28.09.2017, wherein, the Assessing officer has levied a penalty of Rs. 2

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

2. Factual Matrix 2.1 The brief facts of the case as per order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 25.06.2019 hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Penalty Order” is that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 08.12.2018 at an assessed income of Rs.72,39,660/- against the returned income

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

274 r.w.s 271 of the Act.\n5.\nThe assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has\nconfirmed the disallowance of the provisions made towards standard assets\nvide his order dt. 23/12/2015. Thereafter, a fresh show cause was issued to the\nassessee on 21/03/2017 calling for the explanation as to why penalty should not\nbe imposed

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

Section 271AAB of the Act. Since the impugned order of penalty dt. 12/05/2017 of Ld. AO had travelled beyond the scope of allegation made in notice dt. 31/12/2016 issued 8 u/s 274 r.w.s 271 and whereas penalty was imposed u/s 271AAB of the Act contrary to allegation levelled it was rightly set aside by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order

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.

2,23,34,758/-. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) even when the initiation and imposition of that penalty was totally vague. 5. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the impugned

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)

2,00,000/- per day, on multiple occasions form M/s. Jai Shree Ganesh & Co, in cash i.e. otherwise than account payee cheque/bank draft or use of electronic clearing system. This act of the assasse is nothing but contravention of provisions of Sect 269ST of the I.T. Act, and therefore he is liable for the penalty u/s. 271

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

2 charge and also did not specify the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized while initiating penalty against the assessee. The two limbs viz. concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, were separate charges and would carry different connotation / meaning. Non-framing of specific charges would vitiate the penalty proceedings as per settled legal

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)

Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c ) of the Income Tax Act is also initiated for filing inaccurate particular of income and for concealing income. 28. That the Ld. AO also has given finding on presuming that assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing activities : “Although it has been well established that the assessee was not engaged in the manufacturing

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)

Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c ) of the Income Tax Act is also initiated for filing inaccurate particular of income and for concealing income. 28. That the Ld. AO also has given finding on presuming that assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing activities : “Although it has been well established that the assessee was not engaged in the manufacturing

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)

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Non- Resident Indian. Proceedings u/s 147 were initiated in this case by issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021. In response, the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,76,272/- on 29.04.2021. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaire dated

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

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

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)

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee did not file any original return of income within the time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. Thereafter, basis information that the assessee had made certain payments amounting to Rs. 65,56,809/- to various parties and after conducting enquiries under section 133(6), reasons were recorded

SATWINDER KAUR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

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 should not be made under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Also further opportunity was accorded to the appellant to explain vide notice dated 09.07.2021 and in response to the said notice

AMAN FEED INDUSTRIES,KHANNA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, , LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1252, 1253,1254,1255/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19,2019-20 M/S Aman Feed Industries, The Dcit, E-2, Focal Point, Vs Central Circle-1, Khanna. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacfa3624L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 116,181,457/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 The Dcit, Vs M/S Aman Feed Industries, Central Circle-1, E-2, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacfa3624L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Kulbhushan Goyal & Ms, Deepali Aggarwal, Cas Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025

271(l)(c) of the Act, the failure to obtain prior permission from the IAC for imposing penalty was only a procedural error and not fatal to the order of penalty. (vi) Since the entire documents were already available to the Additional CIT in the file sent for approval, there was no need for exchange of the said documents prior