DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 153A of the Act. That Explanation 1 to Section 271 was not applicable in the facts of the case. Further, that even explanation given by the assessee that the aforesaid additional income was earned by speculation in the sale / purchase of agricultural land had been duly mentioned in Rule 9 Report submitted before the Income Tax Settlement Commission

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 153A of the Act. That Explanation 1 to Section 271 was not applicable in the facts of the case. Further, that even explanation given by the assessee that the aforesaid additional income was earned by speculation in the sale / purchase of agricultural land had been duly mentioned in Rule 9 Report submitted before the Income Tax Settlement Commission

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

u/s 153A of the Act. That Explanation 1 to Section 271 was not applicable in the facts of the case. Further, that even explanation given by the assessee that the aforesaid additional income was earned by speculation in the sale / purchase of agricultural land had been duly mentioned in Rule 9 Report submitted before the Income Tax Settlement Commission

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 153A of the Act. That Explanation 1 to Section 271 was not applicable in the facts of the case. Further, that even explanation given by the assessee that the aforesaid additional income was earned by speculation in the sale / purchase of agricultural land had been duly mentioned in Rule 9 Report submitted before the Income Tax Settlement Commission

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 153A of the Act. That Explanation 1 to Section 271 was not applicable in the facts of the case. Further, that even explanation given by the assessee that the aforesaid additional income was earned by speculation in the sale / purchase of agricultural land had been duly mentioned in Rule 9 Report submitted before the Income Tax Settlement Commission

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

9. The facts of the case, the order of the ld. CIT(A) under appeal and the arguments of the assessee on record and that of Ld. DR have been perused. The issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the enhanced claim of deduction u/s 80IC on carrying out substantial expansion has been considered and decided

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

9. The facts of the case, the order of the ld. CIT(A) under appeal and the arguments of the assessee on record and that of Ld. DR have been perused. The issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the enhanced claim of deduction u/s 80IC on carrying out substantial expansion has been considered and decided

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

section 271(l)(b) of the IT. Act is confirmed to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-. 9. It was accordingly, submitted that where the Bench so decide that the penalty has to be levied, then the such penalty should be restricted to an amount of Rs. 10,000/- only. 10. Per contra, the Ld. DR has relied

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

9. It was further submitted that since the A.O. failed to obtain the approval from the Joint Commissioner / Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, he knowingly reduce the penalty to Rs. 17,242/- instead of Rs. 25,051/- which was the minimum penalty leviable on the concealed income, if any, of Rs. 81,072/-. It was further submitted that

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

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

9. Heard. The notice issued to the assessee u/s 274 read with Section 271AAB, a copy whereof has been placed at APB 13, reads as follows : ITA 398/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 7 9.1 The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty notice issued u/s 271AAB of the Act is not, in any manner, depicting the charge against

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

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

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 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of section 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation:--- For the purpose of this section,__ (a)……… (b)………. (c) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income