DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of section 270A shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of section 270A shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of section 270A shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of section 270A shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of section 270A shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section

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

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

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

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 :

2. That, the penalty has been initiated vide notice issued u/s 274, without any specific charge, hence, the notice and the order passed u/s 271(l)(c) are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction and vague. 3. That no valid satisfaction has been recorded by the AO while completing the assessment proceedings, hence, the notice issued u/s

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)

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) in the absence of service of notice on the assesse to levy the same, thus the penalty levied by the Ld. AO is bad in law and be quashed. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty amounting

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

35-36 of Paper Book): Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: I JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT i) ITA No. 91/2019 (P&H) dated 27.2.2020 Pr. CIT v. Prahalad Singh II OTHER HIGH COURTS i) 451 ITR 27 (Bom) Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO ii) 161 taxmann.com 573 (Kar) Panjos Builders

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

35-36 of Paper Book): Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: I JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT i) ITA No. 91/2019 (P&H) dated 27.2.2020 Pr. CIT v. Prahalad Singh II OTHER HIGH COURTS i) 451 ITR 27 (Bom) Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO ii) 161 taxmann.com 573 (Kar) Panjos Builders

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

35-36 of Paper Book): Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: I JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT i) ITA No. 91/2019 (P&H) dated 27.2.2020 Pr. CIT v. Prahalad Singh II OTHER HIGH COURTS i) 451 ITR 27 (Bom) Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO ii) 161 taxmann.com 573 (Kar) Panjos Builders

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

35-36 of Paper Book): Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: I JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT i) ITA No. 91/2019 (P&H) dated 27.2.2020 Pr. CIT v. Prahalad Singh II OTHER HIGH COURTS i) 451 ITR 27 (Bom) Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO ii) 161 taxmann.com 573 (Kar) Panjos Builders

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

35-36 of Paper Book): Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: I JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT i) ITA No. 91/2019 (P&H) dated 27.2.2020 Pr. CIT v. Prahalad Singh II OTHER HIGH COURTS i) 451 ITR 27 (Bom) Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO ii) 161 taxmann.com 573 (Kar) Panjos Builders

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

35-36 of Paper Book): Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: I JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT i) ITA No. 91/2019 (P&H) dated 27.2.2020 Pr. CIT v. Prahalad Singh II OTHER HIGH COURTS i) 451 ITR 27 (Bom) Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO ii) 161 taxmann.com 573 (Kar) Panjos Builders

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

35-36 of Paper Book): Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: I JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT i) ITA No. 91/2019 (P&H) dated 27.2.2020 Pr. CIT v. Prahalad Singh II OTHER HIGH COURTS i) 451 ITR 27 (Bom) Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO ii) 161 taxmann.com 573 (Kar) Panjos Builders

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