M/S CORE METAL KRAFTS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-5(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

TDS, Income Tax Penalty paid = 7,477/- 3) Difference in reconciliation income As per bonus and Form 26AS = 40,057/- 4) ESI penalty

CEIGALL INDIA LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

TDS; and  Expenditure by way of penalty or fine  2.2 The AO issued notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) and called

THE COMMANDER WORKS ENGINEERS,PATIALA vs. JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe Commander Works Engineers, Vs. The Jcit (Tds), Headquarter Bldg No.26, Chandigarh. New Lal Bagh, Patiala. Pan: Ptlh12424G (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act,for late deposit of TDS returns, there is no dispute that no penalty

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), MANDI

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

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

penalty order of Ld. Income Tax Officer TDS Mandi is unjustified and against the law 4. That Ld. Income Tax Officer

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,SHIMLA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

penalty u/s 271CA to the Additional CIT TDS Range, Shimla who issued a show cause dated 3.9.2008 and thereafter, again

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,NAHAN vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

penalty u/s 271CA to the Additional CIT TDS Range, Shimla who issued a show cause dated 3.9.2008 and thereafter, again

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,NAHAN vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

penalty u/s 271CA to the Additional CIT TDS Range, Shimla who issued a show cause dated 3.9.2008 and thereafter, again

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,SHIMLA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

penalty u/s 271CA to the Additional CIT TDS Range, Shimla who issued a show cause dated 3.9.2008 and thereafter, again

STATE BANK OF INDIA LOCAL HEAD OFFICE CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

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

TDS), Chandigarh initiated penalty proceedings under section 271C of the Act and levied penalty equal to the amount of tax allegedly

ACIT, PATIALA vs. M/S SUKHMANI MEGA STRUCTURES PVT. LTD., PATIALA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 The Acit, Vs. Sukhmani Mega Structures Pvt Ltd, Circle Nimakh Enclave, Sirhind Road, Patiala Patiala Pan No. Aalcs9033K

penalty provisions for non-deduction of TDS under section 201 of the Income Tax Act. However, the first proviso to section

JASWANT RAI VERMA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2008-09 Sh. Jaswant Rai Verma, Vs. The Acit, Circle 5(1), H.No.3209, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh Chandigarh

penalty provisions for non-deduction of TDS under section 201 of the Income Tax Act. However, the first proviso to section

M/S THE H.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, BANIKHET BRANCH,CHAMBA vs. ITO (TDS), PALAMPUR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar

penalty by the Income tax department and will also create difference in the maturity value of the instruments. Although in few instances it was also observed that the software is deducting TDS

M/S THE H.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, DALHOUSIE BRANCH,CHAMBA vs. ITO (TDS), PALAMPUR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar

penalty by the Income tax department and will also create difference in the maturity value of the instruments. Although in few instances it was also observed that the software is deducting TDS

M/S THE H.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,CHAMBA vs. ITO (TDS), PALAMPUR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar

penalty by the Income tax department and will also create difference in the maturity value of the instruments. Although in few instances it was also observed that the software is deducting TDS

SH. SAURABH KAUSHIK,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Disposal Of The Same.

penalty u/s 234E of the Act. • Sh. Gurpreet Singh vs. The ACIT, TDS [ITAT, Chandigarh, ITA No. 526/CHD/ 2022 dtd. 15.09.2022] 5. Although

M/S HERITAGE MARKETING,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-3(2), CHANDIGARH

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Heritage Marketing Vs. The Ito Sco-64, F.F., Sector-20-C Ward-3(2), Dakshin Marg, Chandigarh Chandigarh

Penalty in the present case has been levied on the addition made to the income of the assessee on account of difference in the Tax Deducted at Source(in short “TDS

SHRISHTI TECHNOLOGIES,BADDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

TDS is not deducted as required u/s194l of the Act. Thus, 30% of the total expenses towards godown Rent is disallowed of Rs.2,01 ,600/-and added back to the Income of the assessee. 4. The penalty

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.

TDS caused by financial constraints and that excess depreciation was claimed under a bona fide belief, and hence penalty was not leviable