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, 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

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 deducted by PIH u/s 194C on the payment received as freight charges but the same was not shown in the profit and loss account of the assessee. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has (3) erred in law in not upholding the order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

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

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)

1 taken in first appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the legality of order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer on ground of limitation.” 6. Briefly the facts of the case are that a TDS survey under Section 133A

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)

1 taken in first appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the legality of order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer on ground of limitation.” 6. Briefly the facts of the case are that a TDS survey under Section 133A

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)

1 taken in first appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the legality of order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer on ground of limitation.” 6. Briefly the facts of the case are that a TDS survey under Section 133A

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)

1 taken in first appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the legality of order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer on ground of limitation.” 6. Briefly the facts of the case are that a TDS survey under Section 133A