DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

41 to 44/CHD/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Sh. Kulwant Singh. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, बनाम H.No. 1047, Sector 71, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABZPS4962R Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 387/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

41 to 44/CHD/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Sh. Kulwant Singh. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, बनाम H.No. 1047, Sector 71, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABZPS4962R Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 387/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

41 to 44/CHD/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Sh. Kulwant Singh. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, बनाम H.No. 1047, Sector 71, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABZPS4962R Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 387/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

41 to 44/CHD/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Sh. Kulwant Singh. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, बनाम H.No. 1047, Sector 71, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABZPS4962R Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 387/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

41 to 44/CHD/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Sh. Kulwant Singh. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, बनाम H.No. 1047, Sector 71, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABZPS4962R Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 387/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year

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

section 271(1)(c) as it has neither concealed any particulars of income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee has relied on various case laws to support his case as per the record. The relevant extracts of the same are reproduced as under:- 10. In support of the appellant's contention that penalty u/s 271

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

section 271(1)(c) as it has neither concealed any particulars of income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee has relied on various case laws to support his case as per the record. The relevant extracts of the same are reproduced as under:- 10. In support of the appellant's contention that penalty u/s 271

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:

41,50,72,313/- by adding a sum of Rs. 39,99,258/- on account of profit on stock found short. Both the amounts of Rs. 14.00 crores and Rs. 9,99,258/- were part of the total surrender of Rs. 80.00 crores made by SEL Group of cases while making a statement u/s 132(4) of the Income

SMT. SHWETA JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

271(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

M/S MAHARAJA LIGHT & TENT SERVICES,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

271(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

SMT. VANI JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

271(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

SH. PAWAN SAHNI,SOLAN vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

41 TAXMANN.COM 234 (DELHI HC) Section 271AAA, read with section 69, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - Where search has been initiated [Conditions precedent] - A certain sum was surrendered as undisclosed income by an AOP at time of search - Taxes and applicable interest were paid on undisclosed income and manner of earning was recorded in statement

ACIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD., KHARAR

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

section 271 AAA, the penalty @ 10% on undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/- should have been imposed. It was further submitted that only 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/-, amounting to Rs. 12,51,641/-could be imposed as penalty. The Ld. CIT (A) vide order, dated 21.09. 2020, accordingly, restricted the penalty

M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD.,KHARAR vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

section 271 AAA, the penalty @ 10% on undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/- should have been imposed. It was further submitted that only 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/-, amounting to Rs. 12,51,641/-could be imposed as penalty. The Ld. CIT (A) vide order, dated 21.09. 2020, accordingly, restricted the penalty

ACIT,CC-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD., KHARAR

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

section 271 AAA, the penalty @ 10% on undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/- should have been imposed. It was further submitted that only 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/-, amounting to Rs. 12,51,641/-could be imposed as penalty. The Ld. CIT (A) vide order, dated 21.09. 2020, accordingly, restricted the penalty

AKM RESORTS,MOHALI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 2.7 Basis above premises, the ld. AO concluded that assessee is liable to penal action on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and default has been committed by the assessee within the meaning of Section 271

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

271(1)(c) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 2. The facts relating to the case are that in the assessment framed on the assessee u/s 143(3) of the Act, an addition of A.Y. 2012-13 Page 2 of 18 Rs.14,87,66,159/- had been made on account of interest 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