DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

iii) to section 271(1) reveals that as per the relevant provisions, the Assessing officer may direct a person who as per clause (c) has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to pay by way of penalty, a sum which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times, the amount

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

iii) to section 271(1) reveals that as per the relevant provisions, the Assessing officer may direct a person who as per clause (c) has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to pay by way of penalty, a sum which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times, the amount

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

iii) to section 271(1) reveals that as per the relevant provisions, the Assessing officer may direct a person who as per clause (c) has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to pay by way of penalty, a sum which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times, the amount

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

iii) to section 271(1) reveals that as per the relevant provisions, the Assessing officer may direct a person who as per clause (c) has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to pay by way of penalty, a sum which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times, the amount

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

iii) to section 271(1) reveals that as per the relevant provisions, the Assessing officer may direct a person who as per clause (c) has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to pay by way of penalty, a sum which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times, the amount

SH. CHETAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptash.Chetan Jain, Vs. The D.C.I.T., B-121, Pushap Vihar, Central Circle-Iii, Canal Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aaypj0618H (Appellant) (Respondent)

III, Canal Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. PAN: AAYPJ0618H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Smt.Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 24.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. : This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 5, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as CIT(Appeals)) dated 25.11.2016 relating

SH. MUNISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

III, Canal Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. PAN: ABNPJ4747M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rajiv Gupta, CA Respondent by : Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 21.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M.: Both these appeals filed by the assessee have been preferred against separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, Ludhiana both dated 25.11.2016 relating

SH. MUNISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

III, Canal Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. PAN: ABNPJ4747M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rajiv Gupta, CA Respondent by : Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 21.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M.: Both these appeals filed by the assessee have been preferred against separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, Ludhiana both dated 25.11.2016 relating

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

u/s 271(1) (c) of the IT Act is not leviable under the fact and circumstances is duly supported by the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P)LTD. (2010) 230 CTR (SC) 320, wherein the hon'ble Court held as under: Penalty under s, 271(1)(c)—Concealment—Disallowance of claim for deduction — In order to attract

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

u/s 271(1) (c) of the IT Act is not leviable under the fact and circumstances is duly supported by the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P)LTD. (2010) 230 CTR (SC) 320, wherein the hon'ble Court held as under: Penalty under s, 271(1)(c)—Concealment—Disallowance of claim for deduction — In order to attract

SH RAMESH KUMAR DUDANI,MOHALI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE -6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the reply given vide letter dt. 30/05/2019 (copy of which is placed at page no. 16 & 17 of the assessee’s paper book) was as under: “F.No:DCIT/Circle6(1)/Mohali/2019-20/178 Dated: 30.05.2019 To Sh. Ramesh Dudani C-104, I.A., Phase-7, Mohali. Sir, Sub: Calculation in respect of penalty u/s 271(1

M/S PIONEER PESTICIDES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Pioneer Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Sco 82-83, Sector 8-C, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Such borrowings to that extent cannot possibly be held for the purpose of business but for supplementing the cash diverted without deriving any benefit out of it. Accordingly, the assessee will not be entitled to claim deduction of the interest on the borrowings to the extent those are diverted to sister concerns

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

iii) with effect from 1-4-2003 is clarificatory and, therefore, will have retrospective effect 6. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1]Where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Under Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c), voluntary disclosure of concealed income does not absolve assessee

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:

6. Careful reading of section 271AAB of the Act, the words used are 'AO may direct' and 'the assessee shall pay by way of penalty'. Similar words are used section 158BFA(2) of the Act. The word may direct indicates the discretion to the AO. Further, sub section (3) of section 271AAB of the Act, fortifies this view

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

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

6. Against the order of penalty u/s 271(1)(C), the assessee moved in appeal before the ld CIT(A) and who vide his impugned order dated 25/06/2019 has confirmed the levy of penalty and against the said order and findings of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. During the course of hearing

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

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

6. Against the order of penalty u/s 271(1)(C), the assessee moved in appeal before the ld CIT(A) and who vide his impugned order dated 25/06/2019 has confirmed the levy of penalty and against the said order and findings of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. During the course of hearing

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

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

6. Against the order of penalty u/s 271(1)(C), the assessee moved in appeal before the ld CIT(A) and who vide his impugned order dated 25/06/2019 has confirmed the levy of penalty and against the said order and findings of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. During the course of hearing

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

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

6. Against the order of penalty u/s 271(1)(C), the assessee moved in appeal before the ld CIT(A) and who vide his impugned order dated 25/06/2019 has confirmed the levy of penalty and against the said order and findings of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. During the course of hearing