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)

section 200 was filed by the assessee. 12. The assessee, vide application dt. 05/05/2025 had submitted that the additional evidence acknowledging the statement of TDS

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)

section 200 was filed by the assessee. 12. The assessee, vide application dt. 05/05/2025 had submitted that the additional evidence acknowledging the statement of TDS

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)

section 200 was filed by the assessee. 12. The assessee, vide application dt. 05/05/2025 had submitted that the additional evidence acknowledging the statement of TDS

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)

section 200 was filed by the assessee. 12. The assessee, vide application dt. 05/05/2025 had submitted that the additional evidence acknowledging the statement of TDS

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)

section 200 was filed by the assessee. 12. The assessee, vide application dt. 05/05/2025 had submitted that the additional evidence acknowledging the statement of TDS

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)

section 200 was filed by the assessee. 12. The assessee, vide application dt. 05/05/2025 had submitted that the additional evidence acknowledging the statement of TDS

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)

section 200 was filed by the assessee. 12. The assessee, vide application dt. 05/05/2025 had submitted that the additional evidence acknowledging the statement of TDS

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)

section 200 was filed by the assessee. 12. The assessee, vide application dt. 05/05/2025 had submitted that the additional evidence acknowledging the statement of TDS

NAVPREET SINGH BHASIN,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, TDS-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

TDS statements. It was further held by the Bombay High Court that simply because there was no remedy of filing appeal, the provisions of Section 234E cannot be said to be onerous. Following the same, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that “it do not find any good ground to take a view different from the one taken

ACME BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 491/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Vs. The Dcit, Acme Builders Private Limited, Group Housing No. 10, बनाम Central Circe 1(1), Jlpl, Sector 91, Chandigarh Mohali Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaica9869Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

200/- on non-deduction of TDS on payment of Rs. 52,60,000/- to M/s Mohan International Builders under Section

ASSISTANT CONTROLLER F&A DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD SHIMLA

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) came to be dismissed without adjudication on merits, primarily on the ground that there was delay in filing of the appeal and that the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A).

200 of the Act. Failure to deduct tax at source attracts the consequences prescribed under section 201, treating the assessee as an assessee in default. Consequently, the plea that there was no personal liability, or that the assessee acted under administrative confusion or a mistaken understanding of procedure, is wholly untenable in law and does not constitute a valid defence

BANUR BROTHER ,PATIALA vs. ITO-WARD-1, AMBALA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

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

section dealing with deduction of TDS on supply of foodgrains. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) had erred in upholding the finding of Ld. AO that total sales to DFSC of Rs. 3,19,30,200

M/S STATE BANK OF PATIALA,PATIALA vs. ITO, (TDS), PATIALA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 State Bank Of India, Vs. The Ito (Tds), बनाम Patiala (Earlier Known As State Bank Of Patiala),Treasury Branch, Chotti Baradari, Patiala "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacs8571K ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vibhore Garg, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharam Vir, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.04.2023 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2023 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

200(3) read with Rule 31A of the I.T. Rules,1962. On the basis of this fact, the Assessing Officer treated the Assessee bank as ‘assessee in default’. 6. These findings of the ITO (TDS) were accepted and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), Patiala in his order dated 24.4.2017. 7. Aggrieved with this order

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

200. It H pertinent to note that Explanation-2\nof section 263(1) would help the Id. Commissioner to take\ncognizance under section 263 of the Act, if no inquiry was\nconducted by the AO before finalizing the assessment order. No\ndoubt the assessment orders are very brief, and did not have\nelaborate discussion on these issues

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, , AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

200% in relation to the expenses incurred on Research & Development as per the provisions of section 35 (2AB) of the Act is given with the intention on the Government to boost up the Research & Development facility in India. Therefore, the allocation of expenses incurred on R &D activity for the purpose of reducing the weighed deduction, in our view

DCIT CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

200% in relation to the expenses incurred on Research & Development as per the provisions of section 35 (2AB) of the Act is given with the intention on the Government to boost up the Research & Development facility in India. Therefore, the allocation of expenses incurred on R &D activity for the purpose of reducing the weighed deduction, in our view

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

200% in relation to the expenses incurred on Research & Development as per the provisions of section 35 (2AB) of the Act is given with the intention on the Government to boost up the Research & Development facility in India. Therefore, the allocation of expenses incurred on R &D activity for the purpose of reducing the weighed deduction, in our view

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, - vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

200% in relation to the expenses incurred on Research & Development as per the provisions of section 35 (2AB) of the Act is given with the intention on the Government to boost up the Research & Development facility in India. Therefore, the allocation of expenses incurred on R &D activity for the purpose of reducing the weighed deduction, in our view