VARDHMAN POLYTEX LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT(TDS), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi. Though Notices Were Issued Electronically Through The E-Filing Portal, The Assessee Contended That Such Notices Were Neither Brought To Their Knowledge Nor Received Through Any Alternative Means Such As Email Or Physical Intimation. Consequently, The Appeal Was Dismissed Ex Parte. It Was Further Submitted That The Issue Involved In The Present Appeal Is Legal In Nature & Does Not Require Examination Of Disputed Facts; Hence, The Matter May Be Adjudicated On Merits Without The Necessity Of A Remand To The Lower Authorities.

TDS statements (Form 26Q) filed with the Department. 4.2 The Ld. AO treated the assessee as an assessee-in-default under Section 201(1

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 was conducted at the appellant’s Local Head Office, Chandigarh, on 12.01.2018, revealing that the appellant did not deduct 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)

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 was conducted at the appellant’s Local Head Office, Chandigarh, on 12.01.2018, revealing that the appellant did not deduct 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)

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 was conducted at the appellant’s Local Head Office, Chandigarh, on 12.01.2018, revealing that the appellant did not deduct 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)

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 was conducted at the appellant’s Local Head Office, Chandigarh, on 12.01.2018, revealing that the appellant did not deduct 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)

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 was conducted at the appellant’s Local Head Office, Chandigarh, on 12.01.2018, revealing that the appellant did not deduct 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)

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 was conducted at the appellant’s Local Head Office, Chandigarh, on 12.01.2018, revealing that the appellant did not deduct TDS

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 was conducted at the appellant’s Local Head Office, Chandigarh, on 12.01.2018, revealing that the appellant did not deduct 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)

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 was conducted at the appellant’s Local Head Office, Chandigarh, on 12.01.2018, revealing that the appellant did not deduct TDS

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 was conducted at the appellant’s Local Head Office, Chandigarh, on 12.01.2018, revealing that the appellant did not deduct TDS

SUSHMA,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD - 4, YAMUNA NAGAR, YAMUNA NAGAR

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory\nacquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further\ncontended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91\ntaxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the\nlis before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesseee Is Aggrieved By The Common Order Bearing Number Itba/Apl/M/250/2019- 20/1021304437(1) Dt. 25/11/2019 Of Cit(A) Shimla, H.P. Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2015 To 31/03/2016. 2. At The Outset The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Above Appeals Are Barred By Limitation By 02 Days.

1) of the Act and consequently interest under section 201(1A) of the Act also cannot be levied Similar view were held by Hon'ble ITAT Pune bench "A", in case of Abhyudaya Co-op. Bank Ltd VS/ The Income Tax Officer (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)

section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in- charge of 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)

section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in- charge of 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)

section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in- charge of TDS

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)

section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in- charge of 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)

section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in- charge of TDS

SH.H.P.SINGH & OTHERS,MOHALI vs. ITO (TDS-2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.236 To 238/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2011-12 & 2012-13 H.P. Singh & Others, बनाम The Ito (Tds-2), 39 West, Chandigarh Maloya, Village Bheloppur, Sector 122, Mohali "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaefh8681G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS) has rightly held as the appellant in assessee in default under the provision of section 201(1)/201 (1A) of the Act. Therefore

SH.H.P.SINGH & OTHERS,MOHALI vs. ITO (TDS-2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.236 To 238/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2011-12 & 2012-13 H.P. Singh & Others, बनाम The Ito (Tds-2), 39 West, Chandigarh Maloya, Village Bheloppur, Sector 122, Mohali "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaefh8681G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS) has rightly held as the appellant in assessee in default under the provision of section 201(1)/201 (1A) of the Act. Therefore