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

u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld.\nCommissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFA),\nDelhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to\nuphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in levying a penalty of Rs.\n66,38,400/- without specifying the limb of Section 271

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY ,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

SURINDER SINGH RYAIT,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesse Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing Number: 09/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2017-18 Dt. 29/08/2019 Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2014 To 31/03/2015. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 That By An Order In First Appeal Bearing Number 09/It/Cit(A)- 5/Ldh/2017-18 Dt. 21/12/2018 The Ld. Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250(6) Of The Act Had Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Penalty Order Dt. 12/05/2017 Wherein Penalty Of Rs. 12,30,000/- Was Imposed On 2 The Assessee U/S 271Aab(1)(A). The 1St Appeal Of The Assessee Was Thus

Penalty Proceedings U/s has been initiated in the case of 271(1)(c) has been initiated assessee while passing the in the above case. Refer assessment order U/s 143(3) by para no. 4 of Page No. 7 of the Ld. A.O. (Refer page No. 2 the order of Allahabad HC para No. 6 of the Assessment at page

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

penalty of Rs.9,17,81,215/- u/s 271(1)(c) is held to be not correct and consequently Department is in appeal before us. Basis our above order, we reject the appeal of the Department and sustain the order of ld. CIT(A) supra. 31.1 In the result, the above appeal of the Department is rejected. 32. Now we shall

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

penalty of Rs.9,17,81,215/- u/s 271(1)(c) is held to be not correct and consequently Department is in appeal before us. Basis our above order, we reject the appeal of the Department and sustain the order of ld. CIT(A) supra. 31.1 In the result, the above appeal of the Department is rejected. 32. Now we shall

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

penalty of Rs.9,17,81,215/- u/s 271(1)(c) is held to be not correct and consequently Department is in appeal before us. Basis our above order, we reject the appeal of the Department and sustain the order of ld. CIT(A) supra. 31.1 In the result, the above appeal of the Department is rejected. 32. Now we shall

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

penalty of Rs.9,17,81,215/- u/s 271(1)(c) is held to be not correct and consequently Department is in appeal before us. Basis our above order, we reject the appeal of the Department and sustain the order of ld. CIT(A) supra. 31.1 In the result, the above appeal of the Department is rejected. 32. Now we shall

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)

70,000/- consequently penalty of 100% of Rs. 5,56,200/- was imposed under section 271(1) of the Act. 28. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. AO dt. 26/06/2019 exercised his right of first appeal and preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by an order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061111793(1) dt. 19/02/2024 passed in terms

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)

70,000/- consequently penalty of 100% of Rs. 5,56,200/- was imposed under section 271(1) of the Act. 28. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. AO dt. 26/06/2019 exercised his right of first appeal and preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by an order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061111793(1) dt. 19/02/2024 passed in terms

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax\nAct, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty\nproceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges\nout from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax\nAct, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty\nproceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act.\n\n3. First, we take the quantum

SHER SINGH,PALAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

70,000 to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of income tax act, 1961 as unexplained money and taxed as per provisions of section 115BBE i.e taxed @ 60% as discussed in draft assessment order is hereby confirmed. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing the income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income have been initiated separately. Issue notice of demand.” 4. The appeal to the CIT (Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee while impugning the orders of Revenue Authorities submitted that on 06.04.2009, assessee

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

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

271(l)(c) of the Act, the failure to obtain prior permission from the IAC for imposing penalty was only a procedural error and not fatal to the order of penalty. (vi) Since the entire documents were already available to the Additional CIT in the file sent for approval, there was no need for exchange of the said documents prior

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

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

271(l)(c) of the Act, the failure to obtain prior permission from the IAC for imposing penalty was only a procedural error and not fatal to the order of penalty. (vi) Since the entire documents were already available to the Additional CIT in the file sent for approval, there was no need for exchange of the said documents prior

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, , LUDHIANA vs. M/S 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

271(l)(c) of the Act, the failure to obtain prior permission from the IAC for imposing penalty was only a procedural error and not fatal to the order of penalty. (vi) Since the entire documents were already available to the Additional CIT in the file sent for approval, there was no need for exchange of the said documents prior

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

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

271(l)(c) of the Act, the failure to obtain prior permission from the IAC for imposing penalty was only a procedural error and not fatal to the order of penalty. (vi) Since the entire documents were already available to the Additional CIT in the file sent for approval, there was no need for exchange of the said documents prior

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, 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

271(l)(c) of the Act, the failure to obtain prior permission from the IAC for imposing penalty was only a procedural error and not fatal to the order of penalty. (vi) Since the entire documents were already available to the Additional CIT in the file sent for approval, there was no need for exchange of the said documents prior