ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. WARYAM STEEL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, KANGANWAL ROAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

justice are satisfied. 60. In State of J & K v. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad AIR 1967 SC 122 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the right of hearing cannot include the right of cross examination and the right must depend upon the circumstances of each case and must also depend on the statute under which the allegations are being enquired

CT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed for\nStatistical Purposes as per the directions above

justice by\ndisallowing exemption on the ground that assessee is selling books, stationery,\nuniform, swimming accessories and running student hostel which is incidental to\nmain object of the society.\nSir, your attention is drawn to the fact that addition w.r.t. salaries have\nalready been deleted by Hon'ble CIT(A) itself and issue of advances given to\nspecified personshave already

BANUR BROTHER ,PATIALA vs. ITO-WARD-1, AMBALA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

natural justice. It was further also contended that appellant was not given sufficient opportunity to participate and prosecute matter before first appellate authority, therefore impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) must be set aside. The Ld. AR on merits in respect of ground No. 2 & 3 has submitted as follows: 2.2.1 That the Appellant was a commission agent

M/S SUNDER MAL SAT PAL,MUKATSAR vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

natural justice. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the directions by the Ld. Assessing Officer to the appellant for getting the accounts audited by a special auditor u/s 142(2A) and the assessment framed thereafter. The assessment made deserves to be quashed in as much as the Special Auditor has travelled

M/S SUNDER MAL SAT PAL,MUKATSAR vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

natural justice. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the directions by the Ld. Assessing Officer to the appellant for getting the accounts audited by a special auditor u/s 142(2A) and the assessment framed thereafter. The assessment made deserves to be quashed in as much as the Special Auditor has travelled

M/S SUNDER MAL SAT PAL,MUKATSAR vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

natural justice. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the directions by the Ld. Assessing Officer to the appellant for getting the accounts audited by a special auditor u/s 142(2A) and the assessment framed thereafter. The assessment made deserves to be quashed in as much as the Special Auditor has travelled

INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMER RELATED MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), MOHALI

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

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

TDS). The disallowance of interest expenditure was also challenged on the grounds that it was unjustified and inconsistent with the treatment accorded in earlier assessments. Lastly, the assessee contended that the assessment order was cryptic in nature and had been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice

TIRUPATI ENGINEERS AND CONTRUCTIONS,SANGRUR vs. ITO, SANGRUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) submitted that during appellate proceedings, several notices under Section 250 were issued but the assessee failed to file any written submissions or attend hearings. Considering repeated non-compliance, the CIT(A) held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Relying on judicial precedents, it was observed that an appeal requires active prosecution and mere filing is insufficient. As the assessee provided no evidence or arguments in sup

natural justice. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order made by the Ld. AO ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case by passing an exparte order in a mechanical manner without ensuring proper service of hearing notices. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 4,19,620/- against

PRINCIPAL RAJIV GANDHI GOVT. AYURVEDIC COLLEGE ,PAPROLA vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD (ITO, TDS), PALAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

natural justice . 7. That the appellant was not aware of the amended provisions of section 200 A of the Income Tax Act 1961 which come in to effect from 01-06-2015 4. Briefly stated the TDS

PRINCIPAL RAJIV GANDHI GOVT. AYURVEDIC COLLEGE ,PAPROLA vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD (ITO, TDS), PALAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

natural justice . 7. That the appellant was not aware of the amended provisions of section 200 A of the Income Tax Act 1961 which come in to effect from 01-06-2015 4. Briefly stated the TDS

DR. JASWINDER SINGH THROUGH GPA SMT. JAGJIWAN KAUR,ROPAR vs. ITO, W-2(2), ROPAR

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

Natural Justice and as such the order passed is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,81,134/- and Rs. 37,560,/- made on account of alleged non deduction of TDS

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

TDS was required to be deducted from the\nsaid payments, AO had not invoked the provisions of section\n40(a)(ia) of The Act, but however the said issue was raised by the\nAssessing officer during the course of Assessment proceedings, to\nwhich the Appellant has duly submitted his reply. The tribunal held\nthat -\n“The fact that the Assessing

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

TDS was required to be deducted from the\nsaid payments, AO had not invoked the provisions of section\n40(a)(ia) of The Act, but however the said issue was raised by the\nAssessing officer during the course of Assessment proceedings, to\nwhich the Appellant has duly submitted his reply. The tribunal held\nthat -\n\n“The fact that

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

TDS was required to be deducted from the\nsaid payments, AO had not invoked the provisions of section\n40(a)(ia) of The Act, but however the said issue was raised by the\nAssessing officer during the course of Assessment proceedings, to\nwhich the Appellant has duly submitted his reply. The tribunal held\nthat -\n\n“The fact that

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

TDS was required to be deducted from the\nsaid payments, AO had not invoked the provisions of section\n40(a)(ia) of The Act, but however the said issue was raised by the\nAssessing officer during the course of Assessment proceedings, to\nwhich the Appellant has duly submitted his reply. The tribunal held\nthat -\n“The fact that the Assessing

SH. KAMALPREET SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, PATIALA

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.224/Chandi/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Circle Patiala Shri Balwinder Singh Patiala. Prop. M/S M.P. Traders बनाम/ Vs. (Represented By L/R Shri Simranpal Singh) # 986/3 Dhobi Ghat, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acrps-5840-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Co. No.13/Chandi/2015 [In Ita No.224/Chandi/2015] (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Balwinder Singh Acit-Ward-1 बनाम/ Prop. M/S M.P. Traders Patiala. (Represented By L/R Shri Simranpal Singh) Vs. # 986/3 Dhobi Ghat, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acrps-5840-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.225/Chandi/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Circle Patiala Shri Kamalpreet Singh बनाम/ Vs. Patiala. Prop. M/S Saran Enterprises 4, Dlf Shopping Complex, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acbps-1831-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent)

TDS provisions u/s 194C. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal against the assessment order. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the legal grounds of the assessee challenging jurisdiction of Ld. AO. On merits of addition u/s 68, the assessee contended that the report of handwriting expert was not confronted to the assessee which was in gross violation

ITO, PATIALA vs. SH. BALWINDER SINGH, PATIALA

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.224/Chandi/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Circle Patiala Shri Balwinder Singh Patiala. Prop. M/S M.P. Traders बनाम/ Vs. (Represented By L/R Shri Simranpal Singh) # 986/3 Dhobi Ghat, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acrps-5840-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Co. No.13/Chandi/2015 [In Ita No.224/Chandi/2015] (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Balwinder Singh Acit-Ward-1 बनाम/ Prop. M/S M.P. Traders Patiala. (Represented By L/R Shri Simranpal Singh) Vs. # 986/3 Dhobi Ghat, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acrps-5840-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.225/Chandi/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Circle Patiala Shri Kamalpreet Singh बनाम/ Vs. Patiala. Prop. M/S Saran Enterprises 4, Dlf Shopping Complex, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acbps-1831-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent)

TDS provisions u/s 194C. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal against the assessment order. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the legal grounds of the assessee challenging jurisdiction of Ld. AO. On merits of addition u/s 68, the assessee contended that the report of handwriting expert was not confronted to the assessee which was in gross violation

ITO, PATIALA vs. SH. KAMALPREET SINGH, PATIALA

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.224/Chandi/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Circle Patiala Shri Balwinder Singh Patiala. Prop. M/S M.P. Traders बनाम/ Vs. (Represented By L/R Shri Simranpal Singh) # 986/3 Dhobi Ghat, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acrps-5840-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Co. No.13/Chandi/2015 [In Ita No.224/Chandi/2015] (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Balwinder Singh Acit-Ward-1 बनाम/ Prop. M/S M.P. Traders Patiala. (Represented By L/R Shri Simranpal Singh) Vs. # 986/3 Dhobi Ghat, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acrps-5840-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.225/Chandi/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Circle Patiala Shri Kamalpreet Singh बनाम/ Vs. Patiala. Prop. M/S Saran Enterprises 4, Dlf Shopping Complex, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acbps-1831-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent)

TDS provisions u/s 194C. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal against the assessment order. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the legal grounds of the assessee challenging jurisdiction of Ld. AO. On merits of addition u/s 68, the assessee contended that the report of handwriting expert was not confronted to the assessee which was in gross violation