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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT 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. 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

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

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 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

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

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

68,413/- is undisclosed income as per provisions of section 271 AAA. 3. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in confirming penalty levied under section 271 AAA on an amount of Rs. 1

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

68,413/- is undisclosed income as per provisions of section 271 AAA. 3. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in confirming penalty levied under section 271 AAA on an amount of Rs. 1