DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

70,00,000/- Land Promoters Ltd 2011-12 2,23,00,000/- and M/s JLPL Infrastructure) Smt. Jasawant Kaur 2007-08 2,50,000/- (w/o Mr. Kulwant 2009-10 2,20,33,720/- Singh) 2010-11 60,00,000/- 2011-12 85,00,000/- 4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

70,00,000/- Land Promoters Ltd 2011-12 2,23,00,000/- and M/s JLPL Infrastructure) Smt. Jasawant Kaur 2007-08 2,50,000/- (w/o Mr. Kulwant 2009-10 2,20,33,720/- Singh) 2010-11 60,00,000/- 2011-12 85,00,000/- 4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

70,00,000/- Land Promoters Ltd 2011-12 2,23,00,000/- and M/s JLPL Infrastructure) Smt. Jasawant Kaur 2007-08 2,50,000/- (w/o Mr. Kulwant 2009-10 2,20,33,720/- Singh) 2010-11 60,00,000/- 2011-12 85,00,000/- 4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

70,00,000/- Land Promoters Ltd 2011-12 2,23,00,000/- and M/s JLPL Infrastructure) Smt. Jasawant Kaur 2007-08 2,50,000/- (w/o Mr. Kulwant 2009-10 2,20,33,720/- Singh) 2010-11 60,00,000/- 2011-12 85,00,000/- 4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

70,00,000/- Land Promoters Ltd 2011-12 2,23,00,000/- and M/s JLPL Infrastructure) Smt. Jasawant Kaur 2007-08 2,50,000/- (w/o Mr. Kulwant 2009-10 2,20,33,720/- Singh) 2010-11 60,00,000/- 2011-12 85,00,000/- 4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s

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

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in levying a penalty of Rs. 66,38,400/- without specifying the limb of Section 271

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

70_SQT 137 (CHD. TRIE) IT : Where no question was asked during statement recorded under section 132(4), in Respect of manner of earning income surrendered, assessee could not be expected to substantiate same later on; penalty could not be levied under section 271AAA. 1`432ACIT VS. MUNISH KUMAR GOYAL 152 ITD 453 (CHD. TRIE) Section 271

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 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

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

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. 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

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

SH. AASHISH ARORA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-3(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

u/s 144 whereby aforesaid additions made by the A.O. have been challenged. 4. The appellant craves the right to add, alter, amend any ground(s) of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. From the aforesaid ground it would be clear that the only grievance of the Assessee relates to the sustenance of penalty levied

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