DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69 C or section 69D, the penalty provisions of section 271AAC comes into operation which ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 31 provides that if such an income is suo moto declared by the assessee in his return, then

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69 C or section 69D, the penalty provisions of section 271AAC comes into operation which ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 31 provides that if such an income is suo moto declared by the assessee in his return, then

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69 C or section 69D, the penalty provisions of section 271AAC comes into operation which ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 31 provides that if such an income is suo moto declared by the assessee in his return, then

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69 C or section 69D, the penalty provisions of section 271AAC comes into operation which ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 31 provides that if such an income is suo moto declared by the assessee in his return, then

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69 C or section 69D, the penalty provisions of section 271AAC comes into operation which ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 31 provides that if such an income is suo moto declared by the assessee in his return, then

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)

68 of Income Tax Act 1961 but if such income from undisclosed sources, though, invested had not been recorded in the assessee's books, than such income is liable to be assessed in terms of section 69 of Income Tax Act 1961. vii. In Roshan Lai Madan VS CIT 245 ITR (AT) 36 (Chandigarh) AND Jagmohan Ram Ram Chandra

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)

271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.11,68,020/-,being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the income concealed. 3. The matter was carried in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A),where the assessee reiterated the contentions made before the AO and further contended that since no incriminating material was found during search no penalty could

ANUPAM,BARNALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARNALA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

271 CTR 1 (SC)[15- 09-2014] whereby the Hon'ble Court laid down General Principles concerning retrospectivity, para 31 of which reads as under:- "31. Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective

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

271 AAA r.w. section 274 as passed by the Assessing Officer vide order, dated 28.09.2017, wherein, the Assessing officer has levied a penalty of Rs. 2,88,65,300/- against which the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order, dated 26.04.2019 sustained the penalty of Rs. 1,58,68

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

271 AAA r.w. section 274 as passed by the Assessing Officer vide order, dated 28.09.2017, wherein, the Assessing officer has levied a penalty of Rs. 2,88,65,300/- against which the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order, dated 26.04.2019 sustained the penalty of Rs. 1,58,68

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

271 AAA r.w. section 274 as passed by the Assessing Officer vide order, dated 28.09.2017, wherein, the Assessing officer has levied a penalty of Rs. 2,88,65,300/- against which the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order, dated 26.04.2019 sustained the penalty of Rs. 1,58,68

JINDAL PADDING PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE MANNPURA, TEHSIL NALAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER PARWANO, PARWANO

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

68 of the Act. The net taxable income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.33,37,263/-. Accordingly, notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271

HEALTH BIOTECH LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the disposal of the same.

68,581/- levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

271(1)(c) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 2. The facts relating to the case are that in the assessment framed on the assessee u/s 143(3) of the Act, an addition of A.Y. 2012-13 Page 2 of 18 Rs.14,87,66,159/- had been made on account of interest income

SURESH,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, PANCHKULA

In the result both the above appeals are allowed

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

68 and added Rs. 10,04,000/- to the assessee’s taxable income. Penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(b) and 271

SURESH,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, PANCHKULA

In the result both the above appeals are allowed

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

68 and added Rs. 10,04,000/- to the assessee’s taxable income. Penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(b) and 271

EASTMAN INTERNATIONAL,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

Section 115JC -alternate minimum tax at an Income of Rs. 12,81,92,907/- The assessment was framed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi at a total income of Rs. 2,84,22,271/- u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 19.09.2022. While framing assessment, following additions were made by the Learned

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

68 and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). 4 3.7 Ld. AO stated that a Survey under