DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

terms of Sec. 271(l)(c) of the I.T.Act,1961.” 5. Being aggrieved by the identical penalties levied by the Assessing officer for different assessment years, the assessees preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) considering ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

terms of Sec. 271(l)(c) of the I.T.Act,1961.” 5. Being aggrieved by the identical penalties levied by the Assessing officer for different assessment years, the assessees preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) considering ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

terms of Sec. 271(l)(c) of the I.T.Act,1961.” 5. Being aggrieved by the identical penalties levied by the Assessing officer for different assessment years, the assessees preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) considering ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

terms of Sec. 271(l)(c) of the I.T.Act,1961.” 5. Being aggrieved by the identical penalties levied by the Assessing officer for different assessment years, the assessees preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) considering ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

terms of Sec. 271(l)(c) of the I.T.Act,1961.” 5. Being aggrieved by the identical penalties levied by the Assessing officer for different assessment years, the assessees preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) considering ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

terms of Sec. 271(l)(c) of the I.T.Act,1961.” 5. Being aggrieved by the identical penalties levied by the Assessing officer for different assessment years, the assessees preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) considering ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali

SOHAN SINGH GARCHA,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptac.O. No. 39/Chd/2012 (In Ita No. 973/Chd/2012) "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 Shri Sohan Lal Garcha, Vs. The Dcit, 901/2, Punjab Mata Natar, Circle Vi, बनाम Ludhiana Ludhiana

short 'the Act'), whereas, the Cross objections No. 39/Chd/2012 has been preferred by the assessee with respect to the appeal of the Revenue bearing ITA No.973/Chd/2012 against the order of the CIT(A) dated 20.11.2009 in respect of the appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Cross Objections No. 5/Chd/2013 has been

SH. LALIT JAIN,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessees are allowed for

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1074/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Lalit Jain The Assistant Commissioner बनाम S.C.O. 371-372, 2Nd Floor, Of Income Tax Circle-4(1), Sector-35B, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No : Aaupj 0091Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] both dated 30-05-2019 u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act,196 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). 2. At the outset itself, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the issue in both the appeals was identical and arose in the backdrop of identical facts and circumstances. He pointed out that

SMT. JYOTI JAIN,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessees are allowed for

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1074/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Lalit Jain The Assistant Commissioner बनाम S.C.O. 371-372, 2Nd Floor, Of Income Tax Circle-4(1), Sector-35B, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No : Aaupj 0091Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] both dated 30-05-2019 u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act,196 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). 2. At the outset itself, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the issue in both the appeals was identical and arose in the backdrop of identical facts and circumstances. He pointed out that

ITO, LUDHIANA vs. SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') whereas Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the remaining part of penalty. 3. The society consisted of 95 members and was the owner of 21.2 acres, of which 500 square yards plots were held by 65 members, 1000 square yards

SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') whereas Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the remaining part of penalty. 3. The society consisted of 95 members and was the owner of 21.2 acres, of which 500 square yards plots were held by 65 members, 1000 square yards

PAWAN GARG,PANCHKULA vs. ITO WARD 5((5) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1218/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pawan Garg, The Ito, House No. 766, Sector 16, Vs Ward 5(5), Panchkula. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abmpg4243N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026

short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 04.12.2024 passed for assessment year 2014-15. 2. Though assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal, but his grievance revolves around two issues, namely; A.Y.2014-15 2 a) Ld. ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the re- opening of assessment by issuance of a notice u/s 148 dated 30.06.2021. b) Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred

RAJESH POPLI,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: For Imposition Of Penalty U/S271(L)(C).

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the facts and issues involved in all the aforesaid appeals are identical, hence, the penalty is confirmed on this issue in all the appeals. “ Keeping in view the judicial precedent, we hereby decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Unexplained Investment 9. Regarding the penalty levied

SH. PAWAN GARG,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-2, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1475/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

short 'the Act') to the tune of Rs. 2,20,797/-. ITA No. 1498-Chd-2018- Late Sh. Pawan Garg Thru L/h Sh. Akhil Garg, Ludhiana 2 2. At the outset, the Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that there was a delay of 09 days in filing the captioned appeal. It has been submitted in the Delay Condonation Application

SH. PARAM PAUL SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (INTL. TAXATION), CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara, Judicialmember Assessment Year:2009-10

short ‘the Act’. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:- “1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in sustaining an addition of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of cash deposited in the bank account in utter disregard of the explanations rendered which is arbitrary

PARAS AND SHUBHAM CHAUDHARY LEGAL HEIR OF KANHAIYA LAL,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

short, Section 23(2) talks about solatium. Award of solatium is mandatory. Similarly, payment of additional amount under Section 23(1A) is mandatory. The award of interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act is discretionary. Section 28 applies when the amount originally awarded has been paid or deposited and when the Court awards excess amount. In such cases interest

SH. ANIL KUMAR,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by the AO has been upheld. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that as a result of the additions made in the assessment proceedings, penalty of Rs. 1,95,557/- was levied by the AO. The factual background leading to the levy of penalty as brought

MANJEET KAUR KAMBOJ,YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2, YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA, YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumat & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 550/Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Manjit Kaur Kamboj, Ito Ward-2, Lotus Valley Public School, बनाम Yamuna Nagar, Sector – 18, Huda, Haryana Vs. Yamunanagar, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Abmpk5213G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधा""रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Meenal Goyal, Ca & Sh. Abhinav Jain, Adv. राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश/Order Shri Laliet Kumar: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal, As Taken By The Assessee In Form 36, Are Reproduced As Under:

short 'the Act'). (ii) Further, she has drawn our attention to the Certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat certifying that the land is situated outside the municipal limit of Yamunanagar. She has drawn our attention to page 44 of the paper book to the following effect: - 8. The ld. AR had further submitted that once the documents have been placed