ASPEE SONS,SOLAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO, PARWANOO

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

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

80-IC. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of levying penalty of Rs. 5,66,616/- u/s 271(1)(c) even when the initiation of penalty and its imposition thereof is completely vague without specification of limb of s. 271

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB, LUDHIANA vs. AMIT KUMAR, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL .YADAV, VP &SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 549/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3, Ludhiana Punjab बनाम Amit Kumar C/o Leeford Healthcare Ltd., LEO House, DugriDhadra Road, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं/ . PAN NO: ACBPK3657Q अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Cross Objection No. 23/Chd/2024 In (आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 549/Chd/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 20

80,23,500/- surrendered during search u/s 132 of the Act on account of cash found instead of penalty levied @ 60% by AO as per provisions of section 271

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. LEEFORD HEALTHCARE LTD., PUNJAB, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL .YADAV, VP &SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 549/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax बनाम Central Circle 3, Ludhiana Punjab Amit Kumar C/o Leeford Healthcare Ltd., LEO House, DugriDhadra Road, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं/ . PAN NO: ACBPK3657Q अपीलार्थी/ Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Cross Objection No. 23/Chd/2024 In (आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 549/Chd/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2

80,23,500/- surrendered during search u/s 132 of the Act on account of cash found instead of penalty levied @ 60% by AO as per provisions of section 271

MAHESH T. PRASANA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-1, PARWANOO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D.Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 419/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the ITA 419/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 6 Income Tax Act. 6. We have considered the submissions filed by the Revenue on this issue as well as the detailed affidavit filed by the assessee on this issue of condonation of delay. We find that the Revenue has conceded that the Dispatch Register

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. 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. 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

BEE GEE CONSTRUCTION CO,ZIRAKPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-3(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 80-IB of the Act. 8. We do not find any other in good ground to entertain this appeal. 9. For reasons aforestated, we pass the following: ORDER i. Appeal is dismissed. ii. The order of the Tribunal passed in ITA No. 1629/Bangalore/2016 dated 20-10-2017 Assessment Year 2008-09 is hereby affirmed. The Ld. AR has stated

BEE GEE CONSTRUCTION CO,ZIRAKPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 80-IB of the Act. 8. We do not find any other in good ground to entertain this appeal. 9. For reasons aforestated, we pass the following: ORDER i. Appeal is dismissed. ii. The order of the Tribunal passed in ITA No. 1629/Bangalore/2016 dated 20-10-2017 Assessment Year 2008-09 is hereby affirmed. The Ld. AR has stated

AL RASHEED CHARITABLE SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. JCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

80,358/- claimed as corpus fund.\niv)\nDisallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to\nRs.3,34,759/-.\n\nPenalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act also came to be\ninitiated by the AO in respect of additions/disallowances made of\nRs.7,01,67,544/- by the AO by issue of a notice u/s.271(1)(c) read with

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

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

u/s 80-IC on other income. I have reason to believe that the assessee is has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

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

u/s 80-IC on other income. I have reason to believe that the assessee is has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

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

u/s 80-IC on other income. I have reason to believe that the assessee is has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271

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)

80,000/- from SBI Kaithal. 11. That Ld. AO carried out due process during the assessment pr4oceedings both in respect of HDFC Account (supra) and SBI Account (supra) and explanation of the assessee was found to be not satisfactory and consequently assessed Rs. 20,70,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. The said addition

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)

80,000/- from SBI Kaithal. 11. That Ld. AO carried out due process during the assessment pr4oceedings both in respect of HDFC Account (supra) and SBI Account (supra) and explanation of the assessee was found to be not satisfactory and consequently assessed Rs. 20,70,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. The said addition

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

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

penalty proceedings\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, are also initiated.\nThe assessee during the appellate proceedings had reiterated the\nearlier stand; however, the Ld. CIT(A) has conducted the inquiry under\nsection 250(4) of the Act and issued the notices to the assessee. The notice\nissued to the assessee is part