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 survey under Section 133A was conducted at the appellant’s Local Head Office, Chandigarh, on 12.01.2018, revealing that the appellant

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 survey under Section 133A was conducted at the appellant’s Local Head Office, Chandigarh, on 12.01.2018, revealing that the appellant

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 survey under Section 133A was conducted at the appellant’s Local Head Office, Chandigarh, on 12.01.2018, revealing that the appellant

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 survey under Section 133A was conducted at the appellant’s Local Head Office, Chandigarh, on 12.01.2018, revealing that the appellant

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 survey under Section 133A was conducted at the appellant’s Local Head Office, Chandigarh, on 12.01.2018, revealing that the appellant

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 survey under Section 133A was conducted at the appellant’s Local Head Office, Chandigarh, on 12.01.2018, revealing that the appellant

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 survey under Section 133A was conducted at the appellant’s Local Head Office, Chandigarh, on 12.01.2018, revealing that the appellant

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 survey under Section 133A was conducted at the appellant’s Local Head Office, Chandigarh, on 12.01.2018, revealing that the appellant

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 survey under Section 133A was conducted at the appellant’s Local Head Office, Chandigarh, on 12.01.2018, revealing that the appellant

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

133A - Whether\nvalid search is conducted against the assessee u/s 132? - HELD THAT:- We\nfind that the search has been initiated in the name of the assessee firm along\nwith names of partners appearing on the warrant of authorization issued u/s\n132(1) but no search was conducted at the business premises of the assessee\nfirm. The address mentioned

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

133A - Whether\nvalid search is conducted against the assessee u/s 132? - HELD THAT:- We\nfind that the search has been initiated in the name of the assessee firm along\nwith names of partners appearing on the warrant of authorization issued u/s\n132(1) but no search was conducted at the business premises of the assessee\nfirm. The address mentioned

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

133A - Whether\nvalid search is conducted against the assessee u/s 132? - HELD THAT:- We\nfind that the search has been initiated in the name of the assessee firm along\nwith names of partners appearing on the warrant of authorization issued u/s\n132(1) but no search was conducted at the business premises of the assessee\nfirm. The address mentioned

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

133A - Whether\nvalid search is conducted against the assessee u/s 132? - HELD THAT:- We\nfind that the search has been initiated in the name of the assessee firm along\nwith names of partners appearing on the warrant of authorization issued u/s\n132(1) but no search was conducted at the business premises of the assessee\nfirm. The address mentioned

MINING OFFICER,MOHALI vs. ITO(TDS)-2, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Appellate Tribunal For Condonation Of The Short Delay In Submission Of The Appeal. Your Faithfully For Mining Office, Mohali & Ropar (Mining Officer)

TDS verification under section 133A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) found that there were

JCIT(OSD)(TDS),CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S LIBERTY SHOES LTD.,, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 268/Chd/2020 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 Joint Commissioner Of Income M/S Liberty Shoes Ltd., बनाम 13Th Mile Stone, Tax (Osd) (Tds) Circle Aaykar Bhawan, Sector 2 Liberty Puram, G.T. Road, Panchkula Kutail, Karnal Tan No: Rtkl00664G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

133A(1) of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee company on 19.10.2017. Perusal of relevant documents during the course of survey ITA No.268-Chd-2020- Liberty Shoes Limited, Karnal 2 proceedings and the post survey enquiry revealed that the assessee had not deducted tax at source on the payment of incentive to various dealers. Accordingly

SUNDEEP KAPILA,HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL, CHANDIGARH

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

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

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 14.12.2019. Subsequently, proceedings under section 147 were initiated, culminating in an assessment order dated 13.08.2021 wherein the returned income of ₹9,19,020/- was accepted without any additions. However, during the course of survey and assessment proceedings, it was revealed that the assessee had accepted cash

SUNDEEP KAPILA,HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL, CHANDIGARH

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

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

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 14.12.2019. Subsequently, proceedings under section 147 were initiated, culminating in an assessment order dated 13.08.2021 wherein the returned income of ₹9,19,020/- was accepted without any additions. However, during the course of survey and assessment proceedings, it was revealed that the assessee had accepted cash

SUNDEEP KAPILA,HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL, CHANDIGARH

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

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

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 14.12.2019. Subsequently, proceedings under section 147 were initiated, culminating in an assessment order dated 13.08.2021 wherein the returned income of ₹9,19,020/- was accepted without any additions. However, during the course of survey and assessment proceedings, it was revealed that the assessee had accepted cash

GEETA SHARMA,SUNAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PATIALA

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

TDS and TCS, the assessee has shown interest received from land acquisition at Rs. 2,79,08,506.00 and compensation received under land acquisition at Rs, 4,86,426.00, both aggregated to Rs. 2,83,94,932.00. This has been claimed exempt U/s 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8. That as per Annexure to notice