DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

31 provides that if such an income is suo moto declared by the assessee in his return, then no penalty is leviable and if it is otherwise detected by the Assessing officer, in addition to the tax payable u/s 115BBC, such an assessee will be liable to pay penalty equal to a sum computed @ 10% of the tax payable

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

31 provides that if such an income is suo moto declared by the assessee in his return, then no penalty is leviable and if it is otherwise detected by the Assessing officer, in addition to the tax payable u/s 115BBC, such an assessee will be liable to pay penalty equal to a sum computed @ 10% of the tax payable

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

31 provides that if such an income is suo moto declared by the assessee in his return, then no penalty is leviable and if it is otherwise detected by the Assessing officer, in addition to the tax payable u/s 115BBC, such an assessee will be liable to pay penalty equal to a sum computed @ 10% of the tax payable

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

31 provides that if such an income is suo moto declared by the assessee in his return, then no penalty is leviable and if it is otherwise detected by the Assessing officer, in addition to the tax payable u/s 115BBC, such an assessee will be liable to pay penalty equal to a sum computed @ 10% of the tax payable

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

31 provides that if such an income is suo moto declared by the assessee in his return, then no penalty is leviable and if it is otherwise detected by the Assessing officer, in addition to the tax payable u/s 115BBC, such an assessee will be liable to pay penalty equal to a sum computed @ 10% of the tax payable

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)

u/s 153A of the Act and the CIT(Appeals), having regard to the facts of the case, invoked the currently applicable Explanation 5A Section 271(1) (c) of the Act and upheld the penalty, levied by the AO. In such a fact-situation, the CIT(Appeals) has acted in accordance with the currently operative and relevant penal provisions, with reference

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

u/s 153A of the Act and the CIT(Appeals), having regard to the facts of the case, invoked the currently applicable Explanation 5A Section 271(1) (c) of the Act and upheld the penalty, levied by the AO. In such a fact-situation, the CIT(Appeals) has acted in accordance with the currently operative and relevant penal provisions, with reference

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

u/s 153A of the Act and the CIT(Appeals), having regard to the facts of the case, invoked the currently applicable Explanation 5A Section 271(1) (c) of the Act and upheld the penalty, levied by the AO. In such a fact-situation, the CIT(Appeals) has acted in accordance with the currently operative and relevant penal provisions, with reference

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)

31,56,35,140/- which was selected for scrutiny and thereafter, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) dt. 05/03/2014 wherein the AO has, interalia, made a disallowance of provision made towards standard assets amounting to Rs. 2,21,28,000/- and separately, the penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment

M/S SEL TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, theappeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.695/Chd/2018 धििागरणवर्ग / Assessment Year :2014-15 बिाम M/S Sel Textiles Limited, The Dcit, 273-74,G.T. Road, Central Circle-Iii, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana Ludhiana स्थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aancs0401M अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent धििागररतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राजस्वकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh. Ram Mohan, Cit Dr सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2019 उदघोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2019 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg:

u/s 271 AAB on 30-09-2016 whereby levied penalty under Clause (c) of Sec. 271AAB at Rs. 4,31,99,747/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the above orderof the Assessing officer levying the penalty under clause(c) of section

SH. ANIL TALWAR,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar

section 271(1)(c) despite the fact that there is neither concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming penalty and rejecting the contention of the assessee that the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings, as such merely

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)

31 10/5/2017 To Cash 219 2,00,000 32 11/5/2017 To Cash 224 2,00,000 33 12/5/2017 To Cash 229 2,00,000 34 13/5/2017 To Cash 233 2,00,000 35 14/5/2017 To Cash 237 2,00,000 36 15/5/2017 To Cash 241 2,00,000 37 16/5/2017 To Cash 246 2,00,000 38 17/5/2017 To Cash

M/S CORE METAL KRAFTS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-5(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 on the addition of Rs.4,79,9867- by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act. The non adding back of bonus of Rs 2,31

MANPREET SINGH BHULLAR,PARWANOO vs. ITO, PARWANOO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs. 77,393,/-. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: The appellant is an individual and during the assessment year 2007-08, he was carrying on the business of manufacturing of paper tubes, cartons, wrappers and printing

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

31. Since the facts in ITA No. 103/CHD/2019 are common except the assessment year 2013-14 and thattheDepartment is in appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 22.11.2018 [in Appeal No.10436/16- 17/A.Y. 2013-14] whereby order dated 30.08.2016 the ld. AO had imposed penalty of Rs.9,17,81,215/- u/s 271(1)(c) is held

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

31. Since the facts in ITA No. 103/CHD/2019 are common except the assessment year 2013-14 and thattheDepartment is in appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 22.11.2018 [in Appeal No.10436/16- 17/A.Y. 2013-14] whereby order dated 30.08.2016 the ld. AO had imposed penalty of Rs.9,17,81,215/- u/s 271(1)(c) is held

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

31. Since the facts in ITA No. 103/CHD/2019 are common except the assessment year 2013-14 and thattheDepartment is in appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 22.11.2018 [in Appeal No.10436/16- 17/A.Y. 2013-14] whereby order dated 30.08.2016 the ld. AO had imposed penalty of Rs.9,17,81,215/- u/s 271(1)(c) is held

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

31. Since the facts in ITA No. 103/CHD/2019 are common except the assessment year 2013-14 and thattheDepartment is in appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 22.11.2018 [in Appeal No.10436/16- 17/A.Y. 2013-14] whereby order dated 30.08.2016 the ld. AO had imposed penalty of Rs.9,17,81,215/- u/s 271(1)(c) is held