DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

90,00,000/- (Director of Janta 2009-10 70,00,000/- Land Promoters Ltd 2011-12 2,23,00,000/- and M/s JLPL Infrastructure) Smt. Jasawant Kaur 2007-08 2,50,000/- (w/o Mr. Kulwant 2009-10 2,20,33,720/- Singh) 2010-11 60,00,000/- 2011-12 85,00,000/- 4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

90,00,000/- (Director of Janta 2009-10 70,00,000/- Land Promoters Ltd 2011-12 2,23,00,000/- and M/s JLPL Infrastructure) Smt. Jasawant Kaur 2007-08 2,50,000/- (w/o Mr. Kulwant 2009-10 2,20,33,720/- Singh) 2010-11 60,00,000/- 2011-12 85,00,000/- 4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

90,00,000/- (Director of Janta 2009-10 70,00,000/- Land Promoters Ltd 2011-12 2,23,00,000/- and M/s JLPL Infrastructure) Smt. Jasawant Kaur 2007-08 2,50,000/- (w/o Mr. Kulwant 2009-10 2,20,33,720/- Singh) 2010-11 60,00,000/- 2011-12 85,00,000/- 4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

90,00,000/- (Director of Janta 2009-10 70,00,000/- Land Promoters Ltd 2011-12 2,23,00,000/- and M/s JLPL Infrastructure) Smt. Jasawant Kaur 2007-08 2,50,000/- (w/o Mr. Kulwant 2009-10 2,20,33,720/- Singh) 2010-11 60,00,000/- 2011-12 85,00,000/- 4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

90,00,000/- (Director of Janta 2009-10 70,00,000/- Land Promoters Ltd 2011-12 2,23,00,000/- and M/s JLPL Infrastructure) Smt. Jasawant Kaur 2007-08 2,50,000/- (w/o Mr. Kulwant 2009-10 2,20,33,720/- Singh) 2010-11 60,00,000/- 2011-12 85,00,000/- 4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation

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

90%, depending on whether the undisclosed income has been admitted or not, whether the due taxes have been paid or ITA 398/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 5 not, and other conditions; that the perusal of the said section reveals that the penalty u/s 271AAB is levied only for concealment of income and the rates of levy of penalty vary according

M/S APEEJAY EDUCATION SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 271(1 )(b) of the act was passed. 02.12.2019 Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had granted a stay on the assessment proceedings. 8. In ‘Asian Paints Ltd. Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax’, 296 ITR 90 (Bom), it has been held that in case the AO does not accept the objections filed by the assessee against the notice

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(l)(c) is against the well-established norms, case laws and jurisprudence of penalty under the Income Tax Act and against various judicial pronouncements. 9. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case where the assessee declared the income under the head Income From House Property but the revenue has assessed

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(l)(c) is against the well-established norms, case laws and jurisprudence of penalty under the Income Tax Act and against various judicial pronouncements. 9. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case where the assessee declared the income under the head Income From House Property but the revenue has assessed

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(l)(c) is against the well-established norms, case laws and jurisprudence of penalty under the Income Tax Act and against various judicial pronouncements. 9. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case where the assessee declared the income under the head Income From House Property but the revenue has assessed

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(l)(c) is against the well-established norms, case laws and jurisprudence of penalty under the Income Tax Act and against various judicial pronouncements. 9. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case where the assessee declared the income under the head Income From House Property but the revenue has assessed

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(l)(c) is against the well-established norms, case laws and jurisprudence of penalty under the Income Tax Act and against various judicial pronouncements. 9. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case where the assessee declared the income under the head Income From House Property but the revenue has assessed

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(l)(c) is against the well-established norms, case laws and jurisprudence of penalty under the Income Tax Act and against various judicial pronouncements. 9. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case where the assessee declared the income under the head Income From House Property but the revenue has assessed

PALACE INFRATECH PVT LTD,LUDHIANA vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.

u/s 132 but the assessee declares such income in the return of income & pays the tax together with interest on or before the specified date, then penalty @ 20% of the undisclosed income is leviable as per section 271AAB(l)(b). In other cases, not covered under clause (a) and clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271AAB, penalty

SH. SATPAL GOSAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

90 CCH 0104 wherein the assessee was operating transport bus and survey was conducted u/s 133A . Further, in the said case, notice was issued u/s 148 and the revised return filed was accepted by the Assessing Officer without any addition and the explanation made on the basis of Explanation B to sec271(l)(c) was not considered by the revenue

SURINDER SINGH RYAIT,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesse Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing Number: 09/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2017-18 Dt. 29/08/2019 Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2014 To 31/03/2015. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 That By An Order In First Appeal Bearing Number 09/It/Cit(A)- 5/Ldh/2017-18 Dt. 21/12/2018 The Ld. Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250(6) Of The Act Had Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Penalty Order Dt. 12/05/2017 Wherein Penalty Of Rs. 12,30,000/- Was Imposed On 2 The Assessee U/S 271Aab(1)(A). The 1St Appeal Of The Assessee Was Thus

Penalty Proceedings U/s has been initiated in the case of 271(1)(c) has been initiated assessee while passing the in the above case. Refer assessment order U/s 143(3) by para no. 4 of Page No. 7 of the Ld. A.O. (Refer page No. 2 the order of Allahabad HC para No. 6 of the Assessment at page

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

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