DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

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 is leviable

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

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 is leviable

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

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 is leviable

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

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 is leviable

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

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 is leviable

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

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

69, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - Where search has been initiated [Conditions precedent] - A certain sum was surrendered as undisclosed income by an AOP at time of search - Taxes and applicable interest were paid on undisclosed income and manner of earning was recorded in statement of one of members of AOP that income was derived from trading transactions

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.

69,68,581/- 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

ANUPAM,BARNALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARNALA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

u/s, 143(3) of the Act dated 06.06.2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Id PCIT has in erred in passing the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), without appreciating that a statute which affects substantive

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, AMBALA , AMBALA CANTT vs. SURINDER KUMAR VERMA , AMBALA

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.447/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito Ward-4 Shri Surinder Kumar Verma Aaykar Bhawan, B.C. Bazar बनाम/ Vs. H. No. 38, Kabir Nagar Ambala Cantt., Haryana - 133001 Ambala Cantt., Haryana - 133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acspv-3298-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 24-02-2024 Deleting Penalty Of Rs.70,53,886/- As Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 21-09-2015. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. The Ld. Sr. Dr Pleaded For Restoration Of Penalty As Levied By Ld. Ao. Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 1

69 for Rs.226.87 Lacs. Consequently, penalty was initiated for concealment of income in the assessment order and penalty show cause-notices were issued to the assessee u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 during the course of penalty proceedings. The assessee remained non- compliant and accordingly, Ld. AO levied impugned penalty for concealment of particulars of income. 3. Upon further appeal

RAM KUMAR,NEHRU GARDEN COLONY vs. ITO WARD 2, KAITHAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

69 of the Act. The said addition of Rs. 20,70,000/- was added to returned income of Rs. 50,000/- and total income was determined at Rs. 21,20,000/- and in addition Rs. 2,50,000/- as agriculture income. 12. That aforesaid order of assessment of Ld. AO is dated 11/12/2018 under section

RAM KUMAR,NEHRU GARDEN COLONY vs. ITO WARD 2 KAITHAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, AMBALA ROAD KAITHAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

69 of the Act. The said addition of Rs. 20,70,000/- was added to returned income of Rs. 50,000/- and total income was determined at Rs. 21,20,000/- and in addition Rs. 2,50,000/- as agriculture income. 12. That aforesaid order of assessment of Ld. AO is dated 11/12/2018 under section

M/S HOTEL OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY,CHAMBA vs. ITO, BANIKHET

In the result this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 772/Chd/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(b) without appreciating written submissions made. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed action of ITO in adopting status of assessee firm as AOP without ITA Nos. 772-c-12, 485-c-17 & 496-c-18- M/s Oak Valley Residency, Chamba 3 appreciating written submissions made in this regard. 6. That the learned

M/S OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY,DALHOUISE vs. ITO, DALHOUSIE AT, BANIKHET

In the result this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 772/Chd/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(b) without appreciating written submissions made. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed action of ITO in adopting status of assessee firm as AOP without ITA Nos. 772-c-12, 485-c-17 & 496-c-18- M/s Oak Valley Residency, Chamba 3 appreciating written submissions made in this regard. 6. That the learned

M/S OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY,DALHOUSIE vs. ITO, BANIKHET

In the result this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 772/Chd/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(b) without appreciating written submissions made. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed action of ITO in adopting status of assessee firm as AOP without ITA Nos. 772-c-12, 485-c-17 & 496-c-18- M/s Oak Valley Residency, Chamba 3 appreciating written submissions made in this regard. 6. That the learned

SUKHDEV DHILLON,KAITHAL vs. ITO, W-3, KAITHAL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarsukhdev Dhillon Vs. The Ito S/O Shri. Jagir Singh Ward-3, Kaithal Vill-Bhagal, Kaithal

section 69 could be invoked, does not necessary mean that he has not discharged the burden cast upon him by the explanation. Relying on the above judgments the Ld. AR prayed that no penalty is leviable on the facts of the case. 8. Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 9. We have heard Ld. Representatives

M/S 10-D RETAILS,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-1(3), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

u/s 271 (1)(c) were initiated separately for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and thereby a penalty of Rs. 92,700/- was imposed by the Assessing Officer @ 100% of the tax amount sought to be evaded. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty in respect of the addition made by the Assessing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , LUDHIANA vs. AMAN FEED INDUSTRIES, KHANNA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1252, 1253,1254,1255/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19,2019-20 M/S Aman Feed Industries, The Dcit, E-2, Focal Point, Vs Central Circle-1, Khanna. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacfa3624L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 116,181,457/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 The Dcit, Vs M/S Aman Feed Industries, Central Circle-1, E-2, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacfa3624L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Kulbhushan Goyal & Ms, Deepali Aggarwal, Cas Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025

69,460/-. This return was filed on 26.02.2020. The AO has issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) on 16.09.2020 and 01.02.2021. Thereafter, he has passed the assessment order on 08.09.2021 u/s 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. He has made various additions whose cognizance we will be taking in subsequent paragraphs. Dissatisfied with