DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act also provides that if a person fails to offer an explanation or explanation offered is found to be false by the Income-tax Authority or he fails to substantiate such explanation, and that fails to prove the such explanation is bonafide, then the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act also provides that if a person fails to offer an explanation or explanation offered is found to be false by the Income-tax Authority or he fails to substantiate such explanation, and that fails to prove the such explanation is bonafide, then the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act also provides that if a person fails to offer an explanation or explanation offered is found to be false by the Income-tax Authority or he fails to substantiate such explanation, and that fails to prove the such explanation is bonafide, then the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act also provides that if a person fails to offer an explanation or explanation offered is found to be false by the Income-tax Authority or he fails to substantiate such explanation, and that fails to prove the such explanation is bonafide, then the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act also provides that if a person fails to offer an explanation or explanation offered is found to be false by the Income-tax Authority or he fails to substantiate such explanation, and that fails to prove the such explanation is bonafide, then the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income

BALWINDER SINGH,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SUNAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

34,37,500/- after making addition of this amount. The belief of the assessee that he is not under an obligation to file the Income Tax Return due to his below taxable income cannot be said to be a non-bona- fide belief. This constitutes bona-fide belief of the assessee that his income is not liable

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)

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 250 2,00,000 39 18/5/2017 To Cash 254 2,00,000 40 19/5/2017 To Cash 258 2,00,000 41 15/2/2018 To Cash

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.

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 penalty order

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)

section 40(a)(ii)of the Income Tax Act, 1961.. 3. 20.11.2018 u/s 250(6) The CIT(A) has confirmed the addition.As the assessee has not filed any appeal with regard to CIT(A) order. Hence, the addition has attained finality. 4. 29.06.2017 u/s 271(l)(c) Penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.8,51,34

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)

section 40(a)(ii)of the Income Tax Act, 1961.. 3. 20.11.2018 u/s 250(6) The CIT(A) has confirmed the addition.As the assessee has not filed any appeal with regard to CIT(A) order. Hence, the addition has attained finality. 4. 29.06.2017 u/s 271(l)(c) Penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.8,51,34

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)

section 40(a)(ii)of the Income Tax Act, 1961.. 3. 20.11.2018 u/s 250(6) The CIT(A) has confirmed the addition.As the assessee has not filed any appeal with regard to CIT(A) order. Hence, the addition has attained finality. 4. 29.06.2017 u/s 271(l)(c) Penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.8,51,34

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)

section 40(a)(ii)of the Income Tax Act, 1961.. 3. 20.11.2018 u/s 250(6) The CIT(A) has confirmed the addition.As the assessee has not filed any appeal with regard to CIT(A) order. Hence, the addition has attained finality. 4. 29.06.2017 u/s 271(l)(c) Penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.8,51,34

M/S PIONEER PESTICIDES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Pioneer Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Sco 82-83, Sector 8-C, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh

34,215/- invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing

SH. AASHISH ARORA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-3(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

u/s 144 whereby aforesaid additions made by the A.O. have been challenged. 4. The appellant craves the right to add, alter, amend any ground(s) of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. From the aforesaid ground it would be clear that the only grievance of the Assessee relates to the sustenance of penalty levied

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

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

34,759/-.\n\nPenalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act also came to be\ninitiated by the AO in respect of additions/disallowances made of\nRs.7,01,67,544/- by the AO by issue of a notice u/s.271(1)(c) read with\nsection 274 of the Act, dated: 20.12.2018. The assessee did not respond to\nthe penalty notice. Therefore

PARAS AND SHUBHAM CHAUDHARY LEGAL HEIR OF KANHAIYA LAL,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

34, additional compensation under Section 23(1A) and solatium under Section 23(2) of the 1894 Act, would be extremely difficult after all these years, will not be done.” 10.2 The Income Tax Department has also not disputed this aspect because AO is also taxing this amount on receipt basis, otherwise land of the assessee was acquired long back

M/S BRAHMA STEYR TRACTORS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-1(2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.200/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15

34-A, Chandigarh). "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AACC B1022C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 28.08.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 27.09.2019 आदेश/ORDER Per Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member