THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are\nallowed

TDS)\nSolan\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nShri Sachin Doger, C.A\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing :\n16/01/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 27/02/2025\nPER PARESH M. JOSHI, J.M.:\nआदेश/Order\nThis is an appeal filed by the Assessee under section

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)

Section 189 all the proceedings are required to be instituted on the name of partners and not on the name of the Appellant. Therefore, Ld. AO had erred in initiating the assessment proceedings against the Appellant. It was also contended that CIT(A) had not provided sufficient opportunity to the Appellant to present its case before it. CIT(A) only

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are\r\nallowed

TDS)\r\nSolan\r\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\r\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\r\nShri Sachin Doger, C.A\r\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\r\nShri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR\r\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing :\r\n16/01/2025\r\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 27/02/2025\r\nPER PARESH M. JOSHI, J.M.:\r\nआदेश/Order

MUKESH MALHOTRA,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

02,943/- after making addition of Rs. 37,25,543/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of payment made to the various TV Channels without deduction the TDS and Rs. 6,88,125/- us/ 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of failure to deduct tax u/s 194H of the Act. 3.2 The assessee has engaged

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

02,943/- after making addition of Rs. 37,25,543/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of payment made to the various TV Channels without deduction the TDS and Rs. 6,88,125/- us/ 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of failure to deduct tax u/s 194H of the Act. 3.2 The assessee has engaged

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

02,943/- after making addition of Rs. 37,25,543/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of payment made to the various TV Channels without deduction the TDS and Rs. 6,88,125/- us/ 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of failure to deduct tax u/s 194H of the Act. 3.2 The assessee has engaged

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIMLA, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

02,943/- after making addition of Rs. 37,25,543/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of payment made to the various TV Channels without deduction the TDS and Rs. 6,88,125/- us/ 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of failure to deduct tax u/s 194H of the Act. 3.2 The assessee has engaged

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

02,943/- after making addition of Rs. 37,25,543/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of payment made to the various TV Channels without deduction the TDS and Rs. 6,88,125/- us/ 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of failure to deduct tax u/s 194H of the Act. 3.2 The assessee has engaged

SHARMANJI YARNS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

02-2025 alleging difference in expenses claimed under the head fees for technical services (FTS) and commission expenditure. Subsequently, another show-cause notice was issued on 18-03-2025 identifying various issues viz. (i) no verification of stock register was done; (ii) issue of ICDS valuation of stock not verified properly; (iii) Addition to building, Plant & Machinery and furniture

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these three appeals are hereby allowed

Bench: The Disposal Of The Present Appeal.

section 57 of the Act amounting to Rs. 31,28,907/-. The A.O. asked the assessee to show cause as under: "....The Case was selected for reasons-'Large deduction claimed u/s 57' From the perusal of the computation of income it is found that you have claimed a deduction u/s 57ofRs. 31,28,907/- from the income from other sources

SH. RAKESH KUMAR SINGLA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President)

02,89,239/-, payment of certain bills was received in Financial Year 2019-20 and it was reflected in the 26AS statement for Financial Year 2019-20, as the other party had made payment in this year and had also deducted TDS. The assessee furnished before the ld. CIT(A), the bills/invoices. The assessee also filed a copy

M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

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

02-04-2009 in ITA No. 96/2002 and the decision of the Tribunal has become final.] • Samsung India Electronics Ltd. (ITA Nos. 98. 1 B & 143/2010)(DHC) • DCIT vs Maruti Countrywide Auto Financial Services Pvt Ltd: ITA no. 2181 to 2183/Del/2010 (Del). [Pg. 262 of PB- CL-2 for AY 2006-07] • CIT vs. N.G.C. Network (India

ADITI GUPTA,LUDHIANA vs. DDIT, CPC, BENGALURU

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

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

TDS amounting to Rs 5,73,000/-, refund of Rs. 1,02,280/- was claimed while filing the return of income. Thereafter the assessee filed a revised return of income under section

SWATI INDUSTRIES D-74, PHASE-V FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, LUDHIANA , PUNJAB

In the result, the grounds of appeal of the department are dismissed and that of assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 216/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Swati Industries D-74, Phase-V, Focal Point, Ludhiana, Punjab-141010 बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-3 Ludhiana, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADFS5870M अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 547/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-3 Ludhiana, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADFS5870

02,10,256/- and taxing the 3 above amount as per provisions of section 115BBE is not called for. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 4. The Department in its Cross Appeal in ITA No. 547/Chd/2024 has raised following grounds:- “1. Whether upon

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SWATI INDUSTRIES, PUNJAB

In the result, the grounds of appeal of the department are dismissed and that of assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 216/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Swati Industries D-74, Phase-V, Focal Point, Ludhiana, Punjab-141010 बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-3 Ludhiana, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADFS5870M प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent अपीलार्थी/Appellant आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 547/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-3 Ludhiana, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADFS5870

02,10,256/- and taxing the 3 above amount as per provisions of section 115BBE is not called for. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 4. The Department in its Cross Appeal in ITA No. 547/Chd/2024 has raised following grounds:- “1. Whether upon

MUNISH KUMAR LEGAL HEIR LATE SH GURDEEP SINGH,VILL MANAKPUR, YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 5, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 142(1) and obtained a copy of the court order, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that there is no discussion whatsoever on the issue of taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. The assessment order does not refer to section 56(2)(viii) or section 57(iv), nor does it examine the effect of the amendments introduced

MANINDER JEET SINGH V.P.O. UDHAMGARH,JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

section 142(1) and obtained a copy of the court order, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that there is no discussion whatsoever on the issue of taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. The assessment order does not refer to section 56(2)(viii) or section 57(iv), nor does it examine the effect of the amendments introduced

ANIL TUTEJA,FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 142(1) and obtained a copy of the court order, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that there is no discussion whatsoever on the issue of taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. The assessment order does not refer to section 56(2)(viii) or section 57(iv), nor does it examine the effect of the amendments introduced

PARVEEN KUMAR,229,VILLAGE MANAKPUR-II,TEHSIL JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT PANCHKULA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

section 142(1) and obtained a copy of the court order, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that there is no discussion whatsoever on the issue of taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. The assessment order does not refer to section 56(2)(viii) or section 57(iv), nor does it examine the effect of the amendments introduced