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)

133(6) of the Act, or u/s 131 thereof. It stands made out that the assessee had earned the income of Rs.7 lacs from leasing out of vehicle of the company. The copy of account of hire charges, which had been furnished before both the taxing authorities, stands filed before us also. It formed part of the books of account

ITO (TDS), PATIALA vs. M/S S.A. SINGH & CO., BHAWANIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

TDS @ 2% under Section 194C of the Act. 3.1 Thereafter, the proceedings under section 201(1) of the Act were initiated. During the course of proceedings, information was sought under section 133

WARYAM STEEL CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA

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)

TDS deducted, date of bills, details of cheques issued, etc., in such a case, he could not be held responsible for parties not appearing in person and, thus, impugned addition made under section 69C deserved to be deleted. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai v. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. (P.) Ltd [2019] 104 taxmann.com 402 (Bombay) (vii) Where sales supported

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)

TDS deducted, date of bills, details of cheques issued, etc., in such a case, he could not be held responsible for parties not appearing in person and, thus, impugned addition made under section 69C deserved to be deleted. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai v. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. (P.) Ltd [2019] 104 taxmann.com 402 (Bombay) (vii) Where sales supported

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 verification proceedings and issued notice under section 133(6) seeking details of Leave Travel Concession/Leave Fare Concession (LTC/LFC) payments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

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

TDS) for issuing a certificate for deduction of tax at lower rate on account of the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IA of the Act, the assessee was awarded a certificate for assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 placed at PB-126 to 134 after considering all the necessary and relevant documents proving that the assessee

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

TDS) for issuing a certificate for deduction of tax at lower rate on account of the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IA of the Act, the assessee was awarded a certificate for assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 placed at PB-126 to 134 after considering all the necessary and relevant documents proving that the assessee

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

M/S VENKATESH TECHNOKRAFT PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(5), LUDHIANA

Bench: Him Which Is Arbitrary & Unjustified. 3. That The Assessment Order Having Been Passed By The Assessing Officer After Due Application Of Mind & Taking Into Consideration The Various Replies, Material On Record & Books Of Account, The Action Resorted To By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Unwarranted & Uncalled For.

133(6) of the Act to six companies. In those replies, it was stated that their Directors came into contact with Shri Lokesh Kumar, Director of the assessee company somewhere in the beginning of financial year 2013-14 and Mr. Lokesh Kumar expressed his willingness to sell equity shares of the assessee company, since he was in need of long

PAWAN KUMAR,AMBALA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 AMBALA, AMBALA CANTT

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

133(6) had been called for from the bank and placed on record. On perusal of the bank account, it was revealed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 21 lakh in the bank account during the year. The assessee was show caused to explain the source of the cash deposit alongwith documentary evidence on specified dates. In response

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

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 for additional inquiries. Instead, an addition of Rs. 4,50,000/- was made based on the directive of a third party. 22.3 The documents are submitted by the company

ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negi

TDS under the provisions of section 195 of the Act and therefore, disallowance made by the assessing officer u/s 40(a)(i) of Rs. 2,06,81,641/- is deleted. The ground of appeal no. 1 taken by the assessee is allowed”. 8. (supra) and the findings of the ld. CIT(A) are in accordance with the decision of Tribunal

SIMMI GUPTA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT TDS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 212/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Simmi Gupta, The Dcit/Acit (Tds), 1076, Sector 37-B, Vs Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afwpg4983R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2025

133(6) of the Act was issued vide letter dated 06.12.2023 and assessee furnished reply dated 11.12.2023. It was noticed that the assessee made cheque payment amounting to Rs.92,35,500/- and also paid cash amounting to Rs.19,75,000/- towards payment for purchase of the property. It was found that the assessee deducted TDS

M/S KAPSONS AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT, R-III, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1010, 1011 & 1013/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 2011-12 & 2013-14

TDS also deducted on the same. The same has, therefore, been rightly taxed in the impugned year. The ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is, therefore, dismissed. A.Ys

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 was deducted; no discrepancy was shown. f. On capital gains, AO adopted a legally tenable view consistent with section 50. 8 g. On fixed asset additions, the issue was never part of scrutiny; PCIT travelled beyond his jurisdiction. 5.1. The Ld. PCIT in the order in para 5.2 had mentioned with respect to other expensesmentioned as under: Further, during

INDIAN SULPHACID INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, KARNAL

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Shri R.L. Negi

TDS on Contractor ; Rs. 13,90,000/-' : Rs.28.60.000/- Alongwith this, the assessee had submitted 3 bills of the above parties. From perusal of the bills, the following discrepancies are noted :- i) The bill from Mayank Gupta, Builders & Contractors, 9- TAGARE PARK, Delhi, is for Rs.13.90 Lacs on account of repair of Building, Raising: Partition Walls, plastering, repair of bathroom/kitchen