DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

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)

1) of the Income Tax Act, due to his below taxable income as the income of the assessee has been assessed at Rs. 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

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

penalty cannot be levied in respect of that disallowance u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have specifically invited attention of the Ld. Counsel to the facts of the case and brought to his knowledge that there was no evidence furnished by the assessee even of the mixed funds available with it. Even if the decision

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 :

U/s 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

M/S COLOUR COTTEX PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-5(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of income of Rs. 6,02,000/- represented by above mentioned addition were also initiated by the Assessing Officer against the assessee company and levied penalty of Rs. 1,80,600/-upon the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

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

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

37,960/-. The AO passed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act after making addition of Rs.16,84,86,188/- on account of interest income from FDRs on RGCTP and JNNURM projects. The said addition was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) and the ITAT in the appeals preferred by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

SH. JAGMOHAN SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

penalty of Rs. 13,13,910/- u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declared total income of Rs. 6,24,782/- on 31/03/2010. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. During

SHRI DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 25.06.2009 against whom appeal has been dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) by way of the impugned order). 2. It has been brought to our notice that assessee Shri Dinesh Sethi has died on 14.02.2024. Death Certificate of the assessee has been annexed by the ld. counsel for the assessee

SH. DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 25.06.2009 against whom appeal has been dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) by way of the impugned order). 2. It has been brought to our notice that assessee Shri Dinesh Sethi has died on 14.02.2024. Death Certificate of the assessee has been annexed by the ld. counsel for the assessee

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)

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 1039 2,00,000 42 16/2/2018 To Cash 1042 2,00,000 43 17/2/2018 To Cash 1045 2,00,000 44 18/2/2018 To Cash

M/S STEEL STRIPS INFRASTRUCTURES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 732 /Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s Steel Strips Ltd. बनाम The Asst. CIT Central Circle-II Chandigarh SCO 49-50, Sector 26, Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AACCS5077J प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent अपीलार्थी/Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A, Ms. Muska Garg, C.A राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of Hea

37(1) supported the assessee’s claim, the AO made an addition of Rs. 27,00,000/- to the returned income and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld CIT(A) who has since sustained the order

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 ,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