DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act has limited the above wider ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 28 scope and for the purpose of computation of penalty, stress is given on the resultant addition of an amount to the income of the assessee. The tax thereupon represents

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act has limited the above wider ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 28 scope and for the purpose of computation of penalty, stress is given on the resultant addition of an amount to the income of the assessee. The tax thereupon represents

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act has limited the above wider ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 28 scope and for the purpose of computation of penalty, stress is given on the resultant addition of an amount to the income of the assessee. The tax thereupon represents

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act has limited the above wider ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 28 scope and for the purpose of computation of penalty, stress is given on the resultant addition of an amount to the income of the assessee. The tax thereupon represents

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

271(1)(c) of the Act has limited the above wider ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 28 scope and for the purpose of computation of penalty, stress is given on the resultant addition of an amount to the income of the assessee. The tax thereupon represents

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)

section 132(4) r.w.s. 271AAA(4)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also held that the assessee having not disclosed the surrendered income in the original return of income filed, the disclosure in the return filed subsequent to search was only after detection of concealment and the assessees contention that no penalty was leviable since returned income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68,743/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) where he pleaded that non-disclosure of the said interest income was under the bonafide belief that the said interest income was not the income of the assessee at all as the funds on which it accrued, was believed to be kept by it in the capacity

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

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

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

68,083/- 2012-13 Rs. 53,65,700/- Rs. 8,29,003/- 7.4 It was submitted that in view of the same, where the income of the assessee is held as assessable under Article 12 of India-UK DTAA as so contended in the quantum proceedings and the tax has also been deducted thereon as per Article 12 of India

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

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

68,083/- 2012-13 Rs. 53,65,700/- Rs. 8,29,003/- 7.4 It was submitted that in view of the same, where the income of the assessee is held as assessable under Article 12 of India-UK DTAA as so contended in the quantum proceedings and the tax has also been deducted thereon as per Article 12 of India

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

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

68,083/- 2012-13 Rs. 53,65,700/- Rs. 8,29,003/- 7.4 It was submitted that in view of the same, where the income of the assessee is held as assessable under Article 12 of India-UK DTAA as so contended in the quantum proceedings and the tax has also been deducted thereon as per Article 12 of India

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

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

68,083/- 2012-13 Rs. 53,65,700/- Rs. 8,29,003/- 7.4 It was submitted that in view of the same, where the income of the assessee is held as assessable under Article 12 of India-UK DTAA as so contended in the quantum proceedings and the tax has also been deducted thereon as per Article 12 of India

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

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

68,083/- 2012-13 Rs. 53,65,700/- Rs. 8,29,003/- 7.4 It was submitted that in view of the same, where the income of the assessee is held as assessable under Article 12 of India-UK DTAA as so contended in the quantum proceedings and the tax has also been deducted thereon as per Article 12 of India

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

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

68,083/- 2012-13 Rs. 53,65,700/- Rs. 8,29,003/- 7.4 It was submitted that in view of the same, where the income of the assessee is held as assessable under Article 12 of India-UK DTAA as so contended in the quantum proceedings and the tax has also been deducted thereon as per Article 12 of India

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)

B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: VIRTUAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 753/Chd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s Satwant Agro Engineers बनाम The DCIT Sangrur Road, Bhawanigarh, Central Circle Punjab-148026 Patiala "थायी लेखा

SH. BALWAN SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 21-03-05 & 28-11-08 respectively and relate to the same assessment year (in short referred to as A.Y) i.e 1995-96. 2. Initially both the appeals had been dismissed by the ITAT on limitation grounds, not condoning the delay in filing of the same, vide their order dated

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)

B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 100/CHD/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Jindal Padding Pvt. Ltd., Vs The ITO, Village – Mannpura, Parwanoo, Tehsil-Nalagarh, Baddi (HP). Parwanoo. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AABCJ5778Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से

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 Section 133A conducted on 04.03.2015 led to an additional income declaration of Rs. 1,25,00,000/-. The AO noted this income might have remained undisclosed without the survey and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1