DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

50,000/- (w/o Mr. Kulwant 2009-10 2,20,33,720/- Singh) 2010-11 60,00,000/- 2011-12 85,00,000/- 4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s 132 of the Act on 2.5.2012 at the business premises of the aforesaid Janta Group as well as residential premises of the promoters

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

50,000/- (w/o Mr. Kulwant 2009-10 2,20,33,720/- Singh) 2010-11 60,00,000/- 2011-12 85,00,000/- 4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s 132 of the Act on 2.5.2012 at the business premises of the aforesaid Janta Group as well as residential premises of the promoters

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

50,000/- (w/o Mr. Kulwant 2009-10 2,20,33,720/- Singh) 2010-11 60,00,000/- 2011-12 85,00,000/- 4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s 132 of the Act on 2.5.2012 at the business premises of the aforesaid Janta Group as well as residential premises of the promoters

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

50,000/- (w/o Mr. Kulwant 2009-10 2,20,33,720/- Singh) 2010-11 60,00,000/- 2011-12 85,00,000/- 4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s 132 of the Act on 2.5.2012 at the business premises of the aforesaid Janta Group as well as residential premises of the promoters

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

50,000/- (w/o Mr. Kulwant 2009-10 2,20,33,720/- Singh) 2010-11 60,00,000/- 2011-12 85,00,000/- 4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s 132 of the Act on 2.5.2012 at the business premises of the aforesaid Janta Group as well as residential premises of the promoters

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

50,047 Foreign Exchange Fluctuation 7,99,987 Miscellaneous Receipt 1,14,089 Sundry Credit balances written back 99 A further addition of Rs.5,55,241/- was made by disallowing the expense claimed against exempt income u/s 14A. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated w.r.t. all the above referred restriction in deduction claimed and disallowances made

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

50,047 Foreign Exchange Fluctuation 7,99,987 Miscellaneous Receipt 1,14,089 Sundry Credit balances written back 99 A further addition of Rs.5,55,241/- was made by disallowing the expense claimed against exempt income u/s 14A. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated w.r.t. all the above referred restriction in deduction claimed and disallowances made

JARNAIL SINGH GILL,JAGRAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JAGRAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Tribunal & The Matter Was Remanded Back To Ao For Fresh Adjudication. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed

50,000/- confirmed by the learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal of the assessee are-thus partly allowed.” 8. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of the Coordinate Jaipur Benches in case of Sandeep Verma Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1167/JP/2019 dt. 09/01/2020 wherein the relevant findings read as under: “5. We have considered the written submissions

M/S HAPPY STEEL PRIVATE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 397/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S Happy Steels Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम B-Xxix, 2254, Central Circle-2, Kanganwal Road, Ludhiana P.O. Jugiana, Ludhiana 141120 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaach6019D अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

50,050/- only. On this issue, we are of the considered opinion that it has always been an established practice to take both the assessment order and the penalty proceedings as separate and distinct proceedings. An issue may call for an addition during the assessment proceedings but it does not necessarily call for levy of penalty u/s Section 271

M/S HAPPY STEEL PRIVATE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahay

50,050/- and given relief of the balance amount i.e., Rs.77,36,822/-. 5. Vide the penalty order dated 30.03.2022, penalty of Rs.2.50 lacs was imposed on the assessee u/s 271AAB(1) of the Act. 6. By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. 7. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 AAA is not leviable.” 12. The Ld. counsel for assessee, therefore, contended that the assessee having complied with all the conditions specified for grant of immunity u/s 271AAA sub-section (2) of the Act and the CIT(A) having himself deleted the penalty levied in identical circumstances in the case of other assessees of the same group

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

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. 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:

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 “undisclosed income” term/expression 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. 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 :

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 of tax at source

M/S APEEJAY EDUCATION SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 271(1)(b). 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A)fell into grave error by confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. 2. The Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’), while imposing penalty in question, vide order dated 15.10.2019, observed as follows : "Vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 30.08.2019 the assessee was asked to submit some information/documents

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