STATE BANK OF INDIA, SAMB BRANCH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT-TDS, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-1),, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

STATE BANK OF INDIA,AMRITSAR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INDIA (IN-SITU), LUDHIANA

The appeal is dismissed

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

TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

STATE BANK OF INDIA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT/ACIT-TDS, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE(15875),PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

131 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, or a notice under sub-section (4) of Section\n22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under sub-section (1) of\nSection 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is issued to Ajay Kumar\nBindal, Smt. Geeta Bindal AB Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Homeland\nBuildwell Pvt. Ltd. (name of the person

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

131 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, or a notice under sub-section (4) of Section\n22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under sub-section (1) of\nSection 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is issued to Ajay Kumar\nBindal, Smt. Geeta Bindal AB Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Homeland\nBuildwell Pvt. Ltd. (name of the person

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

131 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, or a notice under sub-section (4) of Section\n22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under sub-section (1) of\nSection 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is issued to Ajay Kumar\nBindal, Smt. Geeta Bindal AB Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Homeland\nBuildwell Pvt. Ltd. (name of the person

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

131 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, or a notice under sub-section (4) of Section\n22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under sub-section (1) of\nSection 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is issued to Ajay Kumar\nBindal, Smt. Geeta Bindal AB Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Homeland\nBuildwell Pvt. Ltd. (name of the person

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Sections 133(6) or 131 of the Act for further investigation. However, it is noteworthy that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) extended any such notice to the lender / creditor for additional inquiries. Instead, an addition of Rs. 79,50,000/- was made based on the directive of a third party. 16.14 Moreover, if only the assessee

SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 1652 8 VISHNU COLONY, RAILWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-3, KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

131) however the person searched has filed litigation against 3rd party for such wrong statement dehors material facts containing material particulars to the case proceedings. f.) The written submission as filed before CIT(A) vide submission dated 21.08.2020, 29.12.2020,16.06.2023 along with paper book filed on 21.08.2020 have not been considered properly. 6. That the appellant craves to leave

SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 16528 VISHNU COLONY, RALIWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

131) however the person searched has filed litigation against 3rd party for such wrong statement dehors material facts containing material particulars to the case proceedings. f.) The written submission as filed before CIT(A) vide submission dated 21.08.2020, 29.12.2020,16.06.2023 along with paper book filed on 21.08.2020 have not been considered properly. 6. That the appellant craves to leave

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Sections 133(6) or 131 of the Act for further investigation. However, it is noteworthy that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) extended any such notice to the lender for additional inquiries. Instead, an addition of Rs. 3,70,000/- was made based on the directive of a third party. Neither enquiry was made by CIT(A) / AO before

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Sections 133(6) or 131 of the Act for further investigation. However, it is noteworthy that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) extended any such notice to the lender for additional inquiries. Instead, an addition of Rs. 3,70,000/- was made based on the directive of a third party. Neither enquiry was made by CIT(A) / AO before