DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

48 to 50/CHD/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Sh. Paramjit Singh, The DCIT, Central Circle-1, बनाम H.N o.4197, Sector 68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

48 to 50/CHD/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Sh. Paramjit Singh, The DCIT, Central Circle-1, बनाम H.N o.4197, Sector 68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

48 to 50/CHD/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Sh. Paramjit Singh, The DCIT, Central Circle-1, बनाम H.N o.4197, Sector 68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

48 to 50/CHD/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Sh. Paramjit Singh, The DCIT, Central Circle-1, बनाम H.N o.4197, Sector 68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

48 to 50/CHD/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Sh. Paramjit Singh, The DCIT, Central Circle-1, बनाम H.N o.4197, Sector 68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज

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

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

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)

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 1067 2,00,000 TOTAL 1,04,00,000 4. From the above chart, it is evident that the assesses has received cash

M/S CORE METAL KRAFTS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-5(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

48,208/- falls under purview of Employee benefit expenses and cannot be regarded as an item falling under section 43B of the Act. OL4. 3. The Ld AO and Worthy CIT (A) grossly erred in imposing penalty u/s 271

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

section 45 and 48 of the Income Tax Act.” ix) Therefore, in view of above judgement of Apex Court, when no gain in this case arose attracting sec 45 and 48, there is absolutely no question of making out a case for levy of penalty. The penalty order is therefore, not at all sustainable

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

section 45 and 48 of the Income Tax Act.” ix) Therefore, in view of above judgement of Apex Court, when no gain in this case arose attracting sec 45 and 48, there is absolutely no question of making out a case for levy of penalty. The penalty order is therefore, not at all sustainable

AL RASHEED CHARITABLE SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. JCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

48,56,722/-.\nii) Disallowance of expenditure Rs.90,11,684/- out of total expenditure\namounting to Rs.1,80,23,368/-.\niii)\nAddition of Rs.3,58,80,358/- claimed as corpus fund.\niv)\nDisallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to\nRs.3,34,759/-.\n\nPenalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act also came to be\ninitiated

ACIT,CIRCLE PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. M/S V.K.SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTOR, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 79/Chd/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 बनाम The Acit, M/S V.K. Sood Engineers & Circle, Panchkula Contractor Ddsjv, Unit-Iii, H.No. 20, Sector-6 Panchkula-134109, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aagfv0584J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

48,730/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee challenged the penalty order passed by the AO before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) set aside the order passed by the AO and deleted the penalty levied u/s

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

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

MRS.UMA RANI PRABHKAR,SHIMLA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE SHIMLA, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

48,590/- . Against the said order dated 29/08/2016, an appeal was filed on dated 28/09/2016. 2 ITA 1143/Chd/2019_ Mrs. Uma Rani Prabhakar Vs DCIT 3. That the case of the applicant was opened in revision u/s 263 of the Act and an order dated 13/03/2018 was passed u/s 263 of the Act, thereby re- opening the case for fresh assessment

MAHESH T. PRASANA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-1, PARWANOO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D.Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 419/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

u/s 143(3) on 25.02.2015. 4. That I filed First Appeal for AY 2012-13 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 25.03.2015. 5. That I am a regular taxpayer and have always complied with all the requirements under proceedings of other AYs also which