DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69 C or section 69D, the penalty provisions of section 271AAC comes into operation which ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 31 provides that if such an income is suo moto declared by the assessee in his return, then no penalty

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69 C or section 69D, the penalty provisions of section 271AAC comes into operation which ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 31 provides that if such an income is suo moto declared by the assessee in his return, then no penalty

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69 C or section 69D, the penalty provisions of section 271AAC comes into operation which ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 31 provides that if such an income is suo moto declared by the assessee in his return, then no penalty

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69 C or section 69D, the penalty provisions of section 271AAC comes into operation which ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 31 provides that if such an income is suo moto declared by the assessee in his return, then no penalty

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69 C or section 69D, the penalty provisions of section 271AAC comes into operation which ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 31 provides that if such an income is suo moto declared by the assessee in his return, then no penalty

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.11,68,020/-,being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the income concealed. 3. The matter was carried in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A),where the assessee reiterated the contentions made before the AO and further contended that since no incriminating material was found during search no penalty

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AR has also submitted that the addition in the partner's capita! account of Rs. 50 lacs should be considered as explained under the unaccounted sales transactions of Rs. 42.80 lacs in the impounded documents and other discrepancies of Rs. 7.2 lacs found during the course

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

u/s 271 AAA r.w. section 274 as passed by the Assessing Officer vide order, dated 28.09.2017, wherein, the Assessing officer has levied a penalty of Rs. 2,88,65,300/- against which the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order, dated 26.04.2019 sustained the penalty of Rs. 1,58,68

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

u/s 271 AAA r.w. section 274 as passed by the Assessing Officer vide order, dated 28.09.2017, wherein, the Assessing officer has levied a penalty of Rs. 2,88,65,300/- against which the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order, dated 26.04.2019 sustained the penalty of Rs. 1,58,68

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

u/s 271 AAA r.w. section 274 as passed by the Assessing Officer vide order, dated 28.09.2017, wherein, the Assessing officer has levied a penalty of Rs. 2,88,65,300/- against which the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order, dated 26.04.2019 sustained the penalty of Rs. 1,58,68

HEALTH BIOTECH LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the disposal of the same.

68,581/- on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 2,23,34,758/-. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) even when the initiation and imposition of that penalty was totally vague

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

271(1)(c) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 2. The facts relating to the case are that in the assessment framed on the assessee u/s 143(3) of the Act, an addition of A.Y. 2012-13 Page 2 of 18 Rs.14,87,66,159/- had been made on account of interest income

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

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

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, the ld AR reiterated the submissions made

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

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

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, the ld AR reiterated the submissions made

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

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

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, the ld AR reiterated the submissions made

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

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

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, the ld AR reiterated the submissions made

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

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

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, the ld AR reiterated the submissions made

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

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

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, the ld AR reiterated the submissions made