DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been

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

TARLOCHAN SINGH ,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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 Lal 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)

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 be imposed even by invoking Explanation 5A to section

SMT. ASHA GANDHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-II(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

68 read with section 115BBE Tax Act as the assessee could not give satisfactory reply for the c Rs.5,65,000/- made in HDFC Bank. As the assessee has furnished inaccurate particular of her income, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 27 3 Section 274

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

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.

274 read with section 271(1)(c). On careful examination of the assessment order and the penalty order, we find that the Assessing Officer has recorded a clear and categorical satisfaction that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) as well as excess depreciation claimed. The penalty

CAREER ABROAD EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

274 for concealment of income, to be pursued separately. 4. Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) first considered the ground relating to non-issuance of notice under section 143(2). Ld. CIT(A) observed that although notice under section 148 was issued

M/S SEL MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

274, G.T. Road, Dhandari Khurd, Central Circle-3, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AAHCS9189E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 16.04.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 27.05.2024 HYBRID HEARAING

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

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

274 does not specify the charge against the assessee on which the penalty is sought to be levied and even no charge has been specified in the penalty order which has been passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has declared property income as rental income

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

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

274 does not specify the charge against the assessee on which the penalty is sought to be levied and even no charge has been specified in the penalty order which has been passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has declared property income as rental income

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

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

274 does not specify the charge against the assessee on which the penalty is sought to be levied and even no charge has been specified in the penalty order which has been passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has declared property income as rental income

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

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

274 does not specify the charge against the assessee on which the penalty is sought to be levied and even no charge has been specified in the penalty order which has been passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has declared property income as rental income

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

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

274 does not specify the charge against the assessee on which the penalty is sought to be levied and even no charge has been specified in the penalty order which has been passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has declared property income as rental income