DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

1) of section 115 BBE to provide that wherein in the return of income furnished by the assessee, the total income of an assessee includes an income referred to in sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69 C or section 69D, or otherwise added or determined by the Assessing officer during the assessment proceedings under the above

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

1) of section 115 BBE to provide that wherein in the return of income furnished by the assessee, the total income of an assessee includes an income referred to in sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69 C or section 69D, or otherwise added or determined by the Assessing officer during the assessment proceedings under the above

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

1) of section 115 BBE to provide that wherein in the return of income furnished by the assessee, the total income of an assessee includes an income referred to in sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69 C or section 69D, or otherwise added or determined by the Assessing officer during the assessment proceedings under the above

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

1) of section 115 BBE to provide that wherein in the return of income furnished by the assessee, the total income of an assessee includes an income referred to in sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69 C or section 69D, or otherwise added or determined by the Assessing officer during the assessment proceedings under the above

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

1) of section 115 BBE to provide that wherein in the return of income furnished by the assessee, the total income of an assessee includes an income referred to in sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69 C or section 69D, or otherwise added or determined by the Assessing officer during the assessment proceedings under the above

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

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

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

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

Section 271(1)(c) have been invoked. In this regard, it was submitted that there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the return of income. It was submitted that the assessee was an NRI and permanent resident of U.K. and was running textile business in Derby, England. He has invested in properties

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

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

Section 271(1)(c) have been invoked. In this regard, it was submitted that there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the return of income. It was submitted that the assessee was an NRI and permanent resident of U.K. and was running textile business in Derby, England. He has invested in properties

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

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

Section 271(1)(c) have been invoked. In this regard, it was submitted that there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the return of income. It was submitted that the assessee was an NRI and permanent resident of U.K. and was running textile business in Derby, England. He has invested in properties

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

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

Section 271(1)(c) have been invoked. In this regard, it was submitted that there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the return of income. It was submitted that the assessee was an NRI and permanent resident of U.K. and was running textile business in Derby, England. He has invested in properties

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

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

Section 271(1)(c) have been invoked. In this regard, it was submitted that there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the return of income. It was submitted that the assessee was an NRI and permanent resident of U.K. and was running textile business in Derby, England. He has invested in properties

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

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

Section 271(1)(c) have been invoked. In this regard, it was submitted that there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the return of income. It was submitted that the assessee was an NRI and permanent resident of U.K. and was running textile business in Derby, England. He has invested in properties

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

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(1)(c

M/S SHAHEED KARTAR SINGH SARABHA CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD.),LUDHIANA vs. CIT(A)-4, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 250(6) by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much as she was not justified to direct the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) at Rs. 11,98,68

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

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. He has left behind

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

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. He has left behind