SH. SOHAN LAL,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD -3, PANCHKULA

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

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

220 – Rs. 5,00,000) received on forced retrenchment under VRS on closure of HMT Ltd (Tractor Division), instead of exemption u/s 10(10C)of the Income Tax Act wherever there is no bar on appellate authorities to consider the additional claim of assessee. Additional Grounds 3 Difference of Gratuity compensation at 2007 and 1997 scales amounting

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. WARYAM STEEL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, KANGANWAL ROAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS deducted, date of bills, details of cheques issued, etc., in such a case, he could not be held responsible for parties not appearing in person and, thus, impugned addition made under section 69C deserved to be deleted. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai v. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. (P.) Ltd [2019] 104 taxmann.com 402 (Bombay) (vii) Where sales supported

WARYAM STEEL CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS deducted, date of bills, details of cheques issued, etc., in such a case, he could not be held responsible for parties not appearing in person and, thus, impugned addition made under section 69C deserved to be deleted. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai v. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. (P.) Ltd [2019] 104 taxmann.com 402 (Bombay) (vii) Where sales supported

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

220 TTJ 0273 (Jodhpur-Tribunal) dated 9.5.2019 M/s Vinod Commodities Ltd. vs. ACIT ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 57 vi) ITA No. 764 to 766/Kol/2014 dated 5.4.2017 M/s Classic Flour & Food Processing (P) Ltd. vs. CIT vii) ITA No. 2269/D/2017 dated 10.12.2018 M/s Supersonic Technologies (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT viii) l.TA. No.50/DEL/2021 Assessment year

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

220 TTJ 0273 (Jodhpur-Tribunal) dated 9.5.2019 M/s Vinod Commodities Ltd. vs. ACIT ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 57 vi) ITA No. 764 to 766/Kol/2014 dated 5.4.2017 M/s Classic Flour & Food Processing (P) Ltd. vs. CIT vii) ITA No. 2269/D/2017 dated 10.12.2018 M/s Supersonic Technologies (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT viii) l.TA. No.50/DEL/2021 Assessment year

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

220 TTJ 0273 (Jodhpur-Tribunal) dated 9.5.2019 M/s Vinod Commodities Ltd. vs. ACIT ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 57 vi) ITA No. 764 to 766/Kol/2014 dated 5.4.2017 M/s Classic Flour & Food Processing (P) Ltd. vs. CIT vii) ITA No. 2269/D/2017 dated 10.12.2018 M/s Supersonic Technologies (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT viii) l.TA. No.50/DEL/2021 Assessment year

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , CHANDIGARH

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable