M/S MAHARAJA LIGHT & TENT SERVICES,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

271(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

SMT. SHWETA JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

271(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

SMT. VANI JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

271(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

M/S SEL TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, theappeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.695/Chd/2018 धििागरणवर्ग / Assessment Year :2014-15 बिाम M/S Sel Textiles Limited, The Dcit, 273-74,G.T. Road, Central Circle-Iii, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana Ludhiana स्थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aancs0401M अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent धििागररतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राजस्वकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh. Ram Mohan, Cit Dr सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2019 उदघोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2019 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg:

73,75,950/- after making various additions / disallowances vide order dated 30-03-2016. The Assessing Officer also issued a penalty notice under Clause (a) of Sec. 271 AAB asking the assessee to show cause as to why penalty be not imposed in respect of undisclosed income found/surrendered during search action. A detailed reply was filed vide letter dated

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

SH. ANIL TALWAR,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar

section 271(1)(c) despite the fact that there is neither concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming penalty and rejecting the contention of the assessee that the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings, as such merely

SH. SATPAL GOSAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

73, 74, 90, 110, 136, 191, 192, 253, 254, 278 and 398 of 2014 vide order dated 22.07.2015 has held as under: "As per the order of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court " it was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee-appellant that whatever amount was received from the developer, capital gains tax has already been paid

SH. JAGMOHAN SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declared total income of Rs. 6,24,782/- on 31/03/2010. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. During the course of assessment proceedings

SMT. RENU JAIN,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO-WARD-3(3), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Us:

u/s 271(l)(b) without considering the provisions of s. 273B of the Act and on consideration of provisions of s. 273B, the impugned penalty was not imposable on the appellant. 5. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same. 2. Briefly stated, assessment

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

SHRI 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

M/S EMSONS ORGANICS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Initiation Of Penalty Whether For Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & As Such The Penalty Order Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Unjustified.

penalty imposed under section 271(l)(c) of the Act is not imposable in as much as there is neither any concealment of income nor furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income and as such the order passed under section 271(l)(c) of the Act is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 7. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner

M/S EMSONS ORGANICS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Initiation Of Penalty Whether For Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & As Such The Penalty Order Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Unjustified.

penalty imposed under section 271(l)(c) of the Act is not imposable in as much as there is neither any concealment of income nor furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income and as such the order passed under section 271(l)(c) of the Act is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 7. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner

M/S EMSONS ORGANICS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Initiation Of Penalty Whether For Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & As Such The Penalty Order Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Unjustified.

penalty imposed under section 271(l)(c) of the Act is not imposable in as much as there is neither any concealment of income nor furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income and as such the order passed under section 271(l)(c) of the Act is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 7. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner