DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, observing as under:- “10. Based on above discussion the following conclusions may be drawn A. The assessee

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, observing as under:- “10. Based on above discussion the following conclusions may be drawn A. The assessee

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, observing as under:- “10. Based on above discussion the following conclusions may be drawn A. The assessee

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, observing as under:- “10. Based on above discussion the following conclusions may be drawn A. The assessee

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, observing as under:- “10. Based on above discussion the following conclusions may be drawn A. The assessee

PARAS AND SHUBHAM CHAUDHARY LEGAL HEIR OF KANHAIYA LAL,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

45(5)(b) was taxable in the year of receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right to receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt. It is important to note that compensation, including enhanced compensation/consideration under the 1894 Act, is based on the full value of property as on date of notification

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

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 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:

5 (a) a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if such assessee— (i) in the course of search, in a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which such income has been derived. . (ii) Substantiates the manner

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)

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 1065 2,00,000 52 26/2/2018 To Cash

SH. PARMINDER SINGH MAVI,MORINDA vs. ITO, ROPAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as “Act”) respectively

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)

5. As per record, the assessee has not filed any further appeal against the order so passed by the Ld. CIT(A) therefore as far as the quantum proceedings are concerned, the same has attained finality and the claim of deduction under Section 54 stood disallowed. 6. Thereafter, during the course of penalty proceedings, notices were again issued

DINESH VERMA,MANALI, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ITO, ITO WARD KULLU

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

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

u/s 270A of the Act after following due procedure laid down and to take consequential action. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer had examined the matter and therefore the revision under section 263 was invalid. It was contended that

ITO, LUDHIANA vs. SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') whereas Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the remaining part of penalty. 3. The society consisted of 95 members and was the owner of 21.2 acres, of which 500 square yards plots were held by 65 members, 1000 square yards

SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') whereas Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the remaining part of penalty. 3. The society consisted of 95 members and was the owner of 21.2 acres, of which 500 square yards plots were held by 65 members, 1000 square yards

M/S BRAHMA STEYR TRACTORS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-1(2), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.200/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15

45-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. (Now SCO 196-97, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh). "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AACC B1022C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 28.08.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement

DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. SHRI GURU GOBIND SINGH FOUNDATION, MOGA

In the result appeal of the Department as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargdci T, C-1 (E) Shri Guru Gobind Singh Foundation Circle- 1 (Exemption) 601/11, Tanki Wali Gali No. 2, Dashmesh Chandigarh Nagar Vs. Moga- Punjab Pan No. – Aadts0332A Appellant Respondent

45,75,000/- 1,35,75,000/- 1,35,75,000/- Memorial Educational Society Sachdeva Educational 99,737/- 16,00,263/- 48,50,263/- 66,69,520/- 1,13,71,652/- Society Total- 2,92,99,737/ 4,12,75,263/ 4,77,75,263/ 5,47,94,520/- 5,94,96,652/- - - - Assessee is not taking any interest from