SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini

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) levied upon the assessee on incorrect claim for deduction was not justifiable as the same was on account of change of law and therefore, a matter of bona fide mistake..,.. (iii) Shree Krishna Electricals 2009-23 VST249 (SC) Penalty cannot be levied merely because exemption claimed by 'A'was disallowed. (iv) The Hon'ble Supreme Court

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) levied upon the assessee on incorrect claim for deduction was not justifiable as the same was on account of change of law and therefore, a matter of bona fide mistake..,.. (iii) Shree Krishna Electricals 2009-23 VST249 (SC) Penalty cannot be levied merely because exemption claimed by 'A'was disallowed. (iv) The Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

penalty u/s 271AAA amounting to Rs. 6 2,85,65,300/-, which is equivalent of 10% of the additional income of Rs. 28,56,53,000/-. 6. The assessee filed a detailed submissions before the CIT(A), contending that the assessee had fulfilled all the conditions as per section 271

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

penalty u/s 271AAA amounting to Rs. 6 2,85,65,300/-, which is equivalent of 10% of the additional income of Rs. 28,56,53,000/-. 6. The assessee filed a detailed submissions before the CIT(A), contending that the assessee had fulfilled all the conditions as per section 271

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

penalty u/s 271AAA amounting to Rs. 6 2,85,65,300/-, which is equivalent of 10% of the additional income of Rs. 28,56,53,000/-. 6. The assessee filed a detailed submissions before the CIT(A), contending that the assessee had fulfilled all the conditions as per section 271

THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAMPUR

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

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in levying a penalty of Rs. 66,38,400/- without specifying the limb of Section 271

RAJESH SHARMA,THEOG vs. ITO, W-2, SHIMLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1438/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

56 of the Act. However, the said land was not an asset as per the definition provided u/s 2(14) of the Act, which defines the capital asset. The provisions contained in sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Act clearly state that the agricultural land beyond the municipal area is not to be included in the definition

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

section 56(1) of the Act and the same was accordingly brought to tax in the hands of the assessee and as against the returned income, the assessed income was determined at Rs 2,58,090/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

section 56(1) of the Act and the same was accordingly brought to tax in the hands of the assessee and as against the returned income, the assessed income was determined at Rs 2,58,090/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

section 56(1) of the Act and the same was accordingly brought to tax in the hands of the assessee and as against the returned income, the assessed income was determined at Rs 2,58,090/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

section 56(1) of the Act and the same was accordingly brought to tax in the hands of the assessee and as against the returned income, the assessed income was determined at Rs 2,58,090/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

section 56(1) of the Act and the same was accordingly brought to tax in the hands of the assessee and as against the returned income, the assessed income was determined at Rs 2,58,090/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

section 56(1) of the Act and the same was accordingly brought to tax in the hands of the assessee and as against the returned income, the assessed income was determined at Rs 2,58,090/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271