DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

35 penal provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there must be an overt act on the part of the assessee of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Since the explanation given by the assessees has not been proved to be false or otherwise disapproved by the Assessing officer, hence, under the circumstances

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

35 penal provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there must be an overt act on the part of the assessee of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Since the explanation given by the assessees has not been proved to be false or otherwise disapproved by the Assessing officer, hence, under the circumstances

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

35 penal provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there must be an overt act on the part of the assessee of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Since the explanation given by the assessees has not been proved to be false or otherwise disapproved by the Assessing officer, hence, under the circumstances

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

35 penal provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there must be an overt act on the part of the assessee of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Since the explanation given by the assessees has not been proved to be false or otherwise disapproved by the Assessing officer, hence, under the circumstances

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

35 penal provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there must be an overt act on the part of the assessee of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Since the explanation given by the assessees has not been proved to be false or otherwise disapproved by the Assessing officer, hence, under the circumstances

DCIT, PARWANOO vs. M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS, SOLAN

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

35, EPIP-II Circle, Parwanoo Vill Thana, Baddi, Solan Himachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Dr. Gulshan Raj Date of hearing : 14/12/2017 Date of Pronouncement : 06/03/2018 ORDER PER BENCH: The above appeals emanates from the order u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 have been filed by the Revenue and Cross Appeals

HYCRON ELECTRONICS vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

35, EPIP-II Circle, Parwanoo Vill Thana, Baddi, Solan Himachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Dr. Gulshan Raj Date of hearing : 14/12/2017 Date of Pronouncement : 06/03/2018 ORDER PER BENCH: The above appeals emanates from the order u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 have been filed by the Revenue and Cross Appeals

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)

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 of income

ANJALI SAINI,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO-WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 271(1) (c) dated 17.08.2023 was received by the assesse on her email id anjalisaini2510@gmail.comas was mentioned in the FORM 35. The copy of the said notice has been perused by us from the paper book. (Nor relevant for purpose of adjudication of this second appeal) 16. That for filing the reply to the said notice against penalty u.s271

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(l)(c) 5. That the invocation of Explanation 1 against the assessee is illegal and bad in law.” 3. During the course of hearing before us Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that the penalty in the present case had been levied on disallowance of freight payments amounting to Rs.3,38,43,488/- for non deduction of tax at source

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

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

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)

u/s 271 DA to the tune of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- on account of alleged violation of section 269ST. 2. That no proper or reasonable opportunity has been afforded to the appellant to represent the case since no notice was received on the email of assessee or on the email of his counsel or through physical mode. That

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,SHIMLA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 271CA on the appellant is duly covered by the provisions of section 273B of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the appellant duly had a genuine reasonable cause as explained above for not collecting the Tax at Source (TCS). Moreover, the admission of the appeal by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court also supports the bona fide

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,SHIMLA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 271CA on the appellant is duly covered by the provisions of section 273B of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the appellant duly had a genuine reasonable cause as explained above for not collecting the Tax at Source (TCS). Moreover, the admission of the appeal by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court also supports the bona fide

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,NAHAN vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 271CA on the appellant is duly covered by the provisions of section 273B of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the appellant duly had a genuine reasonable cause as explained above for not collecting the Tax at Source (TCS). Moreover, the admission of the appeal by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court also supports the bona fide

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,NAHAN vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 271CA on the appellant is duly covered by the provisions of section 273B of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the appellant duly had a genuine reasonable cause as explained above for not collecting the Tax at Source (TCS). Moreover, the admission of the appeal by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court also supports the bona fide

KHOSLA MACHINES PVT. LTD. ,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1 (1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the penalty so levied and sustained u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: Us.

Section 35(2AB) of the Act and the said explanation has not been rebutted by the AO. In light of the same and given that the quantum and penalty proceedings are separate proceedings, merely the fact that the assessee has not challenged the findings of the AO in the quantum proceedings, the same cannot form the basis to fasten

M/S YAMUNA POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,JAGADHRI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

35,34,337/-, rent paid to SS Sardana (HUF) amounting to Rs. 60,000/-, remuneration paid to Shri Sanjeev Sardana (Director) amounting to Rs. 30,00,000/-, and remuneration paid to Director, Shri Rajeev Sardana amounting to Rs, 12,00,000/-. 2.5 As per the AO, the assessee did not furnish the details of related parties transactions in Form 3CEB