M/S GOLD STAR AMCO STEELS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

144 dt. 09/03/2015 wherein the assessed income was determined at Rs. 3,54,58,572/- as against the returned loss of Rs. 2,46,67,816/-. 6. While passing the assessment order, the AO made an addition of Rs. 32,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received by the assessee during

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S GOLD STAR AMCO STEELS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

144 dt. 09/03/2015 wherein the assessed income was determined at Rs. 3,54,58,572/- as against the returned loss of Rs. 2,46,67,816/-. 6. While passing the assessment order, the AO made an addition of Rs. 32,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received by the assessee during

INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMER RELATED MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), MOHALI

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

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

144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, as per the order dated 05.11.2019. The assessment primarily resulted in the following additions: an amount of Rs. 27,56,748/- was added by treating rental receipts as undisclosed income; a disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 56,18,640/- was made, which was treated as unexplained expenditure under Section

BANSAL RICE TRADERS,SANGRUR vs. ITO-WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on 18.12.2017 by making an addition of Rs. 17,23,119 ( Rs. 15,00,000/- unexplained cash and Rs. 2,223,119/- contractual receipt received at Rs. 17,23,120/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, sufficient opportunities of being heard were provided to the assessee and the assessee the assessee

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,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,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,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. 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,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, 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

M/S DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PVT. LTD. ,TOANSA vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

144(C)(13) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12 & 2014- 15, respectively. Since, the issues raised in grounds of appeal for both the impugned AYs are identical, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order

DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

144(C)(13) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12 & 2014- 15, respectively. Since, the issues raised in grounds of appeal for both the impugned AYs are identical, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order

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)

144/-only had fails to deduct tax on balance Rs. 37,25,543/- from the following parties: Sl. Name of the parties Total payment Balance on Amount of No. which TDS was not payment subject to TDS deducted 1. MSM Discovery Pvt. Ltd. 2630065 1305235 1324830 TDS- 38434 2. ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd. 1237315 865000 372315 TDS

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)

144/-only had fails to deduct tax on balance Rs. 37,25,543/- from the following parties: Sl. Name of the parties Total payment Balance on Amount of No. which TDS was not payment subject to TDS deducted 1. MSM Discovery Pvt. Ltd. 2630065 1305235 1324830 TDS- 38434 2. ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd. 1237315 865000 372315 TDS

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)

144/-only had fails to deduct tax on balance Rs. 37,25,543/- from the following parties: Sl. Name of the parties Total payment Balance on Amount of No. which TDS was not payment subject to TDS deducted 1. MSM Discovery Pvt. Ltd. 2630065 1305235 1324830 TDS- 38434 2. ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd. 1237315 865000 372315 TDS