DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)(c) fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot be levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. 4.7 Para 8 of the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble Apex is reproduced as under:- “Section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)(c) fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot be levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. 4.7 Para 8 of the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble Apex is reproduced as under:- “Section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)(c) fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot be levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. 4.7 Para 8 of the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble Apex is reproduced as under:- “Section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)(c) fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot be levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. 4.7 Para 8 of the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble Apex is reproduced as under:- “Section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

u/s 271(l)(c) fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot be levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. 4.7 Para 8 of the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble Apex is reproduced as under:- “Section

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)

section 271 of the I.T.Act,1961., dated 29.11.2013 are invalid and bad in law. 2. On the facts and are the circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty order dated 30.05.2014 passed u/s 271(l)(c) is invalid and bad in law. The appellant hereby very humbly prays Your Honor to admit the additional grounds raised

DCIT, PARWANOO vs. M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS, SOLAN

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

8. With regards to levy of penalty on the issue of foreign exchange fluctuation the it was submitted that Ld AO while levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in assessment 2010-11, excluded foreign exchange fluctuation from the levy of penalty. The Ld AO ought to have followed the same principle during the year under appeal and should have

HYCRON ELECTRONICS vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

8. With regards to levy of penalty on the issue of foreign exchange fluctuation the it was submitted that Ld AO while levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in assessment 2010-11, excluded foreign exchange fluctuation from the levy of penalty. The Ld AO ought to have followed the same principle during the year under appeal and should have

SH. MUNISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

section 271 of the I.T. Act,1961., dated 29.11.2013 are invalid and bad in law. 2. On the facts and are the circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty order dated 30.05.2014 passed u/s 271(l)(c) is invalid and bad in law.” 7. At the time of hearing, the Ld. counsel for assessee pointed out that

SH. MUNISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

section 271 of the I.T. Act,1961., dated 29.11.2013 are invalid and bad in law. 2. On the facts and are the circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty order dated 30.05.2014 passed u/s 271(l)(c) is invalid and bad in law.” 7. At the time of hearing, the Ld. counsel for assessee pointed out that

JARNAIL SINGH GILL,JAGRAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JAGRAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Tribunal & The Matter Was Remanded Back To Ao For Fresh Adjudication. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed

8. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of the Coordinate Jaipur Benches in case of Sandeep Verma Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1167/JP/2019 dt. 09/01/2020 wherein the relevant findings read as under: “5. We have considered the written submissions of the assessee as well as the arguments of the Id. D/R and carefully perused the impugned orders

SH RAMESH KUMAR DUDANI,MOHALI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE -6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

8. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the A.O. before levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act did not obtain the approval from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax which is mandatory as per the provisions of Section 274 of the Act which provides that no order imposing the penalty shall be made except with

M/S HAPPY STEEL PRIVATE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 397/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S Happy Steels Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम B-Xxix, 2254, Central Circle-2, Kanganwal Road, Ludhiana P.O. Jugiana, Ludhiana 141120 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaach6019D अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

penalty u/s Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on this debatable issue, is not justified. Accordingly, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 13.05.2024. ( A.D. JAIN ) Accountant Member “आर.के.” आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ

M/S HAPPY STEEL PRIVATE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 271AAB (1), or clause (a) or (b) of 271 AAB (1 A) of the Act, penalty is leviable on the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the notice initiating penalty u/s 271 AAB of the Act is vague and the assessee was not made aware of the actual charge on which the penalty proceedings will be initiated

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

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

section 271 AAA, the penalty @ 10% on undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/- should have been imposed. It was further submitted that only 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/-, amounting to Rs. 12,51,641/-could be imposed as penalty. The Ld. CIT (A) vide order, dated 21.09. 2020, accordingly, restricted the penalty

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

section 271 AAA, the penalty @ 10% on undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/- should have been imposed. It was further submitted that only 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/-, amounting to Rs. 12,51,641/-could be imposed as penalty. The Ld. CIT (A) vide order, dated 21.09. 2020, accordingly, restricted the penalty

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

section 271 AAA, the penalty @ 10% on undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/- should have been imposed. It was further submitted that only 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/-, amounting to Rs. 12,51,641/-could be imposed as penalty. The Ld. CIT (A) vide order, dated 21.09. 2020, accordingly, restricted the penalty