ITAT Chandigarh Bench
6,746 judgments
JAINSONS AGENCIES,CHANDIGARH vs ITO, WARD 2(3), CHANDIGARH
INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUDHIANA vs BALPREET SINGH, LUDHIANA
ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs AMIT KUMAR SINGLA, MANDI GOBINDGARH
THE JAND CO-OPERATIVE P.S LTD,LUDHIANA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, JARGON
THE JAND MILK CO-OPERATIVE P.S. LTD,VILLAGE JAND BARUNDI BO LUDHIANA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, JAGRAON
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), MOHALI, MOHALI vs GURMEET KAUR, MOHALI
SMT. ARUNIMA SEHGAL MUKHERJEE,CHANDIGARH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH.
DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs M/S FORTUNE METALS LTD., LUDHIANA
SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)
LABH SINGH,SIRSA vs ITO, WARD 01, SIRSA
the Ld. CIT(A) It is observed from the appellate order that several notices were issued during the course of appellate proceedings; however, the assessee did not appear nor filed any documentary evidence in support of his case. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, proceeded to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, holding that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus cast upon him to explain the source of cash deposits.4. B
HARBHOL SINGH,SUNAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SUNAM
SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
RISHU GARG S/O SH. SURENDER KUMAR GARG,YAMUNANAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, YAMUNANAGAR
the Ld. CIT(A). However, it is evident from the impugned appellate order that, despite several opportunities granted during the appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to comply and did not file any substantive submissions. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition primarily on account of non-prosecution and absence of supporting evidence.
SHARANJIT KAUR,CHANDIGARH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH
SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)
DAYA LAXMI CHARITABLE TRUST,DHARAMPUR, KASAULI, SOLAN vs CIT (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH
SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
DAYA LAXMI CHARITABLE TRUST,DHARAMPUR KASAULI, SOLAN vs CIT (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH
SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
ITO, LUDHIANA vs ARUN GUPTA, LUDHIANA
SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
VINEET KUMAR,DHARAMSHALA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHARMSHALA
SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)
RAVINDER KUMAR,SOLAN vs INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIMLA, INCOME TAX OFFICER
SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)
ASHOK KUMAR,SIRSA vs ITO, W-1, SIRSA , HARYANA
me is that the authorities below erred in not granting credit of TCS as reflected in Form 26AS, merely on the ground that the same was not claimed in the return of income. The assessee has demonstrated that the TCS stands duly reflected in the Annual Tax Statement (Form 26AS).
DCIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH vs M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD,, CHANDIGARH
SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)
M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD.,,CHANDIGARH vs ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH
SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)
