AMRIK SINGH BHULLAR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

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

section 154(8) but the order was passed on 09-11-2018 i.e. after expiry of 6 months.” 2. By the remaining grounds, the assessee assails the issue on merits. 3. At the time of hearing, an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the assessee. None was present in support thereof. However, considering the record, the ld. Sr.DR addressing

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

SH. SAURABH KAUSHIK,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Disposal Of The Same.

Section 234E of the Act. Therefore, in case, there is a default or delay in submitting the TDS statements, a late fee is levied as contemplated U/s 234E of the Act and the A.O. while processing the statements of TDS shall make the adjustment on this account. Thus, so far as the nature of levy U/s 234E

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

TDS particulars was wholly unjustified. [Para 7] As regards second ground for reopening the assessment, the dividend income received during the year was claimed as exempt and the same was accepted in the assessment order passed under section 143(3). The reason for reopening the assessment was that in the absence of particulars it could not be said that

HP AGRO INDUSTRIES CORP. LTD.,PARWANOO vs. ACIT, CPC (TDS), VAISHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1072/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S H.P. Agro Industries The Asstt. Cit, बनाम Corporation Ltd., Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Plot No. 8, Bangluru Pesticide Unit, Parwanoo (H.P) "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Ptlh11428E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing Through Video Conferencing "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. Cit(Dr)

154 of the Act rejecting rectification application moved by assessee against intimation issued levying late filing fees ITA No. 1072-Chd/2018- M/s H.P. Agro Industries Corporation Ltd, Parwanoo 6 charged under section 234E of the Act. The case of assessee before us is that the issue is squarely covered by various orders of Tribunal, wherein the issue has been decided

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)

7. 47184 1200 Nil Mega Research TDS-272 Distribution (India) Pvt. Ltd. 9429687 5704144 3725543 3.4 The submissions filed by the assessee were considered but not accepted to the AO. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under section 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2016, making the following disallowances:  Disallowance of Rs. 37,25,543/- under section

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)

7. 47184 1200 Nil Mega Research TDS-272 Distribution (India) Pvt. Ltd. 9429687 5704144 3725543 3.4 The submissions filed by the assessee were considered but not accepted to the AO. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under section 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2016, making the following disallowances:  Disallowance of Rs. 37,25,543/- under section

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)

7. 47184 1200 Nil Mega Research TDS-272 Distribution (India) Pvt. Ltd. 9429687 5704144 3725543 3.4 The submissions filed by the assessee were considered but not accepted to the AO. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under section 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2016, making the following disallowances:  Disallowance of Rs. 37,25,543/- under section

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)

7. 47184 1200 Nil Mega Research TDS-272 Distribution (India) Pvt. Ltd. 9429687 5704144 3725543 3.4 The submissions filed by the assessee were considered but not accepted to the AO. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under section 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2016, making the following disallowances:  Disallowance of Rs. 37,25,543/- under section

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)

7. 47184 1200 Nil Mega Research TDS-272 Distribution (India) Pvt. Ltd. 9429687 5704144 3725543 3.4 The submissions filed by the assessee were considered but not accepted to the AO. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under section 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2016, making the following disallowances:  Disallowance of Rs. 37,25,543/- under section

SH. RAKESH KUMAR SINGLA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President)

154 read with Section 143(1) of the Act, correcting the claim of TDS in accordance with the notice on record, to be tenable on facts and in law; that as also further correctly held by the ld. CIT(A), the explanations offered by the assessee and the additional documents that sought to rely on involve detailed investigation

M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

154 (Pg. 278 of PB-CL-2 for AY 2006-07). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CJT-3 vs. Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd. 245 Taxman 389 reiterating the law in this regard, held (Pg. 288 of PB-CL-2 for AY2006-07]: “6. Regarding Question No. 2, during the course of proceedings

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

7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) with the multiple times growth in the number, size and strength of the schools, the increase in the salaries over the years is but natural and justified. 5.2.9. On the other hand the assertions made by the AO in his assessment order are nothing more than abstract statements

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

7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) with the multiple times growth in the number, size and strength of the schools, the increase in the salaries over the years is but natural and justified. 5.2.9. On the other hand the assertions made by the AO in his assessment order are nothing more than abstract statements

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

7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) with the multiple times growth in the number, size and strength of the schools, the increase in the salaries over the years is but natural and justified. 5.2.9. On the other hand the assertions made by the AO in his assessment order are nothing more than abstract statements

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

7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) with the multiple times growth in the number, size and strength of the schools, the increase in the salaries over the years is but natural and justified. 5.2.9. On the other hand the assertions made by the AO in his assessment order are nothing more than abstract statements

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

7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) with the multiple times growth in the number, size and strength of the schools, the increase in the salaries over the years is but natural and justified. 5.2.9. On the other hand the assertions made by the AO in his assessment order are nothing more than abstract statements

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

7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) with the multiple times growth in the number, size and strength of the schools, the increase in the salaries over the years is but natural and justified. 5.2.9. On the other hand the assertions made by the AO in his assessment order are nothing more than abstract statements