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

SH. AMAN SETH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

penalty notice u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Being aggrieved by the AO order dt. 10/02/2015 (supra) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who by an order dt. 05/06/2017 has sustained the additions. 7. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A) dt. 05/06/2017 has preferred

M/S SHREE GANESH JEWELLERS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE V(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act. This clarifies that whenever there is an addition during the course of assessment, this shall result into case being treated as a case of under reporting income. The expression "penalty for concealment" mentioned in the reply of the assessee does not applicable to the nature of penalty initiated in this case, since

OSHO FORGE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed and penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 523/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Osho Forge Ltd., Vs. Dcit, बनाम D-42, Phase V, Circle 1, Focal Point, Ludhiana, Ludhiana Punjab 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaco3362I अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sarabjit Garg, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024

Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was carried out on the Assessee on 26.8.2008. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the Assessee has filed return of income declaring an income

PAWAN GARG,PANCHKULA vs. ITO WARD 5((5) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1218/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pawan Garg, The Ito, House No. 766, Sector 16, Vs Ward 5(5), Panchkula. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abmpg4243N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026

61,23,120 Total income : 65,24,960 A.Y.2014-15 4 After considering the facts of the case, assessment is completed on a total income of Rs.65,24,960/-. Charge interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D as per the provisions of IT. Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271F for non-filing of ITR in respect to the notice u/s

J.K.EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

61,733/- 33,22,053/- Pending before ITAT 2010-11 9,50,400/- 38,26,733/- 47,77,133/- Accepted u/s 143(3) 2011-12 9,50,400/- 29,74,253/- 39,24,653/- Accepted u/s 143(3) 2012-13 12,67,200/- 25,00,000/- 37,67,200/- Accepted u/s

J. K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

61,733/- 33,22,053/- Pending before ITAT 2010-11 9,50,400/- 38,26,733/- 47,77,133/- Accepted u/s 143(3) 2011-12 9,50,400/- 29,74,253/- 39,24,653/- Accepted u/s 143(3) 2012-13 12,67,200/- 25,00,000/- 37,67,200/- Accepted u/s

J.K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE-1,, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

61,733/- 33,22,053/- Pending before ITAT 2010-11 9,50,400/- 38,26,733/- 47,77,133/- Accepted u/s 143(3) 2011-12 9,50,400/- 29,74,253/- 39,24,653/- Accepted u/s 143(3) 2012-13 12,67,200/- 25,00,000/- 37,67,200/- Accepted u/s

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, are also initiated. 9.2 The assessee during the appellate proceedings had reiterated the earlier stand; however, the Ld. CIT(A) has conducted the inquiry under section 250(4) of the Act and issued the notices to the assessee. The notice issued to the assessee is part

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, are also initiated. 9.2 The assessee during the appellate proceedings had reiterated the earlier stand; however, the Ld. CIT(A) has conducted the inquiry under section 250(4) of the Act and issued the notices to the assessee. The notice issued to the assessee is part

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, are also initiated. 9.2 The assessee during the appellate proceedings had reiterated the earlier stand; however, the Ld. CIT(A) has conducted the inquiry under section 250(4) of the Act and issued the notices to the assessee. The notice issued to the assessee is part

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

u/s 133A of the IT Act to find out the true facts of the case when there was no compliance and cooperation on the part of the assessee to prove its primary onus. And on the basis of survey only true facts of the case were ascertained which helped in ascertaining the factual reality. The assessing office collected information u/s

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

u/s 133A of the IT Act to find out the true facts of the case when there was no compliance and cooperation on the part of the assessee to prove its primary onus. And on the basis of survey only true facts of the case were ascertained which helped in ascertaining the factual reality. The assessing office collected information u/s

SMT. JAGDEEP KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD 6(4), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048105767(1) Dt. 20/12/2022 Which Was Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Said First Appeal Was Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A). Therefore Assessee Is Before Us. The Said Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. 4. In Form No. 36 The Assessee Interalia Has Take Up Following Grounds Of Appeal Against The Impugned Order Which Are Reproduced Below:

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of particulars of income are being initiated separately. Penalty proceedings u/s 271F for non filing of Income Tax Return are being initiated separately. Based upon above, the total income of the assessee is computed as under:- Addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 Rs. 7,35,000/- Assessed

M/S GANESH BUILDERS,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) in respect of income enhanced by him in the appellate order. 9. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.” 3. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee firm has also moved

M/S LUXMI BUILDERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) in respect of income enhanced by him in the appellate order. 9. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.” 3. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee firm has also moved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections\nare dismissed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 which is premature in nature.\n5.5 Ground of Appeal No. 7 is consequential in nature.\n5.6 Ground of Appeal No. 8 has not been argued by the AR during the course of\nappellate proceedings.\n6. In the result the appeal is allowed on factual grounds.”\n11. Before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is premature in nature. ITA No.992 & 993/CHD/2024 & CO 46 & 45/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18 & 2016-17 14 5.5 Ground of Appeal No. 7 is consequential in nature. 5.6 Ground of Appeal No. 8 has not been argued by the AR during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. In the result

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD. ,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

u/s\n80-IC on other income. I have reason to believe that the assessee is has\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, are also initiated.\nThe assessee during the appellate proceedings had reiterated the\nearlier stand; however, the Ld. CIT(A) has conducted the inquiry under\nsection