DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44

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)

44,152/- on 21.06.2012 for AY 2011-12 wherein her Postal Address was # 22, Jain Nagar, Ambala Haryana 133001. The copy of the Income tax return filed along with address perused by us from paper book. 4. Thereafter a notice under section 148 dated 22.03.2019 was issued at the address mentioned above. That the said notice was received back

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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 is justified. 9. CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd [183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/[2010] 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/[2009] 226 CTR A.Y. 2012-13 Page 9 of 18 105]where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that if claim made in return of income appears to be ex facie bogus, it would

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)

44 18/2/2018 To Cash '1048 2,00,000 45 19/2/2018 To Cash 1050 2,00,000 46 20/2/2018 To Cash 1054 2,00,000 47 21/2/2018 To Cash 1057 2,00,000 48 22/2/2018 To Cash 1059 2,00,000 49 23/2/2018 To Cash 1061 2,00,000 50 24/2/2018 To Cash 1063 2,00,000 51 25/2/2018 To Cash

SH. ROSHAN LAL JINDAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1555/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

section 271AAA is not leviable. 11. In view of the above judicial precedents we find that the assessee has specified and substantiated the manner of earning the income and has not violated any of the conditions specified u/s 271AAA(2), for granting immunity from penalty. 12. We therefore hold that no penalty u/s 271AAA could be levied in the present

SH. AMIT JINDAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271AAA is not leviable. 11. In view of the above judicial precedents we find that the assessee has specified and substantiated the manner of earning the income and has not violated any of the conditions specified u/s 271AAA(2), for granting immunity from penalty. 12. We therefore hold that no penalty u/s 271AAA could be levied in the present

SH. ASHOK JINDAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271AAA is not leviable. 11. In view of the above judicial precedents we find that the assessee has specified and substantiated the manner of earning the income and has not violated any of the conditions specified u/s 271AAA(2), for granting immunity from penalty. 12. We therefore hold that no penalty u/s 271AAA could be levied in the present

MANPREET SINGH BHULLAR,PARWANOO vs. ITO, PARWANOO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

44,256/-. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dt. 03/06/2016 directed the A.O. to apply the GP rate of 14.50% on the aforesaid purchase and the A.O. after giving effect to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) worked out the addition of Rs 2,52,917/-. He also initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271

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

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)

44,79,523/- which was subsequently revised and thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued. 2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the Arms Length Price in respect of International transactions and specified domestic transactions entered into by the assessee

OSHO FORGE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed and penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 523/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Osho Forge Ltd., Vs. Dcit, बनाम D-42, Phase V, Circle 1, Focal Point, Ludhiana, Ludhiana Punjab 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaco3362I अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sarabjit Garg, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024

Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was carried out on the Assessee on 26.8.2008. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the Assessee has filed return of income declaring an income

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AR has also submitted that the addition in the partner's capita! account of Rs. 50 lacs should be considered as explained under the unaccounted sales transactions of Rs. 42.80 lacs in the impounded documents and other discrepancies of Rs. 7.2 lacs found during the course