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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

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

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

1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case & in law, the penalty proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 274 read with 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

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

1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case & in law, the penalty proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 274 read with 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

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

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

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

u/s Date of Issue Date of hearing Remarks 142(1) 29.06.2017 11.07.2017 Non-complied 142(1) 12.07.2017 19.07.2017 Non-complied 142(1) 25.07.2017 10.08.2017 Non-complied 142(1) 11.08.2017 22.08.2017 Non-complied In the assessment order, the AO has stated that a notice under section 142(1) along with the query letter was issued on 29.06.2017. Since there

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 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

ANJALI SAINI,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO-WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

u/s 142(1). The copy of the notice under section 142(1) disclosing such remarks have been perused by us from paper book. The remark is dated 22.02.2019. 6. After that a letter dated 05.11.2019 was affixed, again at address #22, Jain Nagar, Amabala, Haryana 133001 even after knowing the fact by the Ld. AO that the assesse has left

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 36(1)(viia) rather it is on Performing assets from which regular\nreturn/income is being received by the assessee, as discussed above.\"\n5.3 It is noted from the aforesaid observations that the claim of provision\nmade on Performing assets amounting Rs.2,21,28,000/-, was embedded by the\nappellant, in the overall claim of deduction made towards provision

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 is justified. 9. CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd [183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/[2010] 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/[2009] 226 CTR A.Y. 2012-13 Page 9 of 18 105]where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that if claim made in return of income appears to be ex facie bogus, it would

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