DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

271(l)(c). Thus the facts of the case are different from the appellant's ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 9 case as the claim made in the original return was withdrawn in the revised return filed. 5.1.2 Hamirpur Distt. Cooperative Bank Ltd vs DCIT

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

271(l)(c). Thus the facts of the case are different from the appellant's ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 9 case as the claim made in the original return was withdrawn in the revised return filed. 5.1.2 Hamirpur Distt. Cooperative Bank Ltd vs DCIT

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

271(l)(c). Thus the facts of the case are different from the appellant's ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 9 case as the claim made in the original return was withdrawn in the revised return filed. 5.1.2 Hamirpur Distt. Cooperative Bank Ltd vs DCIT

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

271(l)(c). Thus the facts of the case are different from the appellant's ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 9 case as the claim made in the original return was withdrawn in the revised return filed. 5.1.2 Hamirpur Distt. Cooperative Bank Ltd vs DCIT

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

271(l)(c). Thus the facts of the case are different from the appellant's ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 9 case as the claim made in the original return was withdrawn in the revised return filed. 5.1.2 Hamirpur Distt. Cooperative Bank Ltd vs DCIT

SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Us Challenging The Levy Of Penalty Both On Legal Ground As Well As On Merits Of The Case :

271(1)(c) of the Act, thus, would not be attracted in the case of the assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals) was therefore, justified in following the order of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of AT & T Communication Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) on the matter in issue. The ld. DR relied upon decision in the case of Zoom Communications

M/S HIMACHAL FASHION PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-6(3), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 8/Chd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

27l(l)(c) of I. T. Act, 1961 were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. During the penalty proceedings, the Assessee submitted that since the return of income was a belated return, so this may be a reason to disallow the claim of considered u/s 80IC of the Act but it cannot be considered as filing of inaccurate

JAGJIT SINGH ,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, PATIALA , PATIALA

In the result we set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the file of Ld

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058720011(1) Dt. 13/12/2023 Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-12 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2010 To 31/03/2011. 2. Factual Matrix

271(1)(b) Opportunity letter 04 06.2018 11 06.2018 -do- Show cause to penalty u/s 22 06 2018 28 06.2018 -do- 27l(1)(b) Notice u/s 142(1) 19.07.2018 26.07.2018 -do- Notice u/s 142(1) 06.08.2018 13.08.2018 -do- Notice u/s 142(1) 06.09.2018 12.09.2018 -do- Show cause notice 19.09.2018 27.09.2018 -do- Opportunity letter 22 10.2018 26.10.2018 -do- ! 2.5 That