M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

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

3. Ground Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are general. 4. Ground No. 2 pertains to the issue of the ld. CIT(A) having deleted the addition of export commission of Rs.2,20,71,855/- paid by the assessee to NRIs without deducting TDS. 5. The AO disallowed the expenditure on the commission on exports amounting to Rs.2

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

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

3. Ground Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are general. 4. Ground No. 2 pertains to the issue of the ld. CIT(A) having deleted the addition of export commission of Rs.2,20,71,855/- paid by the assessee to NRIs without deducting TDS. 5. The AO disallowed the expenditure on the commission on exports amounting to Rs.2

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

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

3. Ground Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are general. 4. Ground No. 2 pertains to the issue of the ld. CIT(A) having deleted the addition of export commission of Rs.2,20,71,855/- paid by the assessee to NRIs without deducting TDS. 5. The AO disallowed the expenditure on the commission on exports amounting to Rs.2

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

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

3. Ground Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are general. 4. Ground No. 2 pertains to the issue of the ld. CIT(A) having deleted the addition of export commission of Rs.2,20,71,855/- paid by the assessee to NRIs without deducting TDS. 5. The AO disallowed the expenditure on the commission on exports amounting to Rs.2

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

3 CD audit report (column 34a), you had deducted TDS of Rs. 2435095/- on payment of interest of Rs. 2,43,50,911/- under section 194A. Further scrutiny of the case records revealed that as per profit & loss account, total expenditure was Rs. 1,40,14,722/- (expenditure on interest was only 11053024) against expenditure

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)

TDS was made were Rs. 57,04,114/- and balance Rs. 3,72,25,543/- were disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the act. During the rectification proceedings, the appellant had furnished certificate only of two parties namely M/s. MSM Discovery (P) Ltd. And M/s. Stare Den Media Services as against 07 parties before AO. Therefore, total amount

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)

TDS was made were Rs. 57,04,114/- and balance Rs. 3,72,25,543/- were disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the act. During the rectification proceedings, the appellant had furnished certificate only of two parties namely M/s. MSM Discovery (P) Ltd. And M/s. Stare Den Media Services as against 07 parties before AO. Therefore, total amount

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)

TDS was made were Rs. 57,04,114/- and balance Rs. 3,72,25,543/- were disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the act. During the rectification proceedings, the appellant had furnished certificate only of two parties namely M/s. MSM Discovery (P) Ltd. And M/s. Stare Den Media Services as against 07 parties before AO. Therefore, total amount

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)

TDS was made were Rs. 57,04,114/- and balance Rs. 3,72,25,543/- were disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the act. During the rectification proceedings, the appellant had furnished certificate only of two parties namely M/s. MSM Discovery (P) Ltd. And M/s. Stare Den Media Services as against 07 parties before AO. Therefore, total amount

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)

TDS was made were Rs. 57,04,114/- and balance Rs. 3,72,25,543/- were disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the act. During the rectification proceedings, the appellant had furnished certificate only of two parties namely M/s. MSM Discovery (P) Ltd. And M/s. Stare Den Media Services as against 07 parties before AO. Therefore, total amount

M/S VENKATESH TECHNOKRAFT PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(5), LUDHIANA

Bench: Him Which Is Arbitrary & Unjustified. 3. That The Assessment Order Having Been Passed By The Assessing Officer After Due Application Of Mind & Taking Into Consideration The Various Replies, Material On Record & Books Of Account, The Action Resorted To By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Unwarranted & Uncalled For.

226 ITR 527(All) • P.K. Fabrics Vs. Asstt. CIT(1998) 67 ITD 326(Asr-Trib) • V. Narayanan Vs. Dy. CIT(2004) 88 ITD 43 (Chennai-Trib) • Ambika Agro Suppliers Vs. ITO(2005) 95 ITD 326 (Pune –Trib) 8. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case

M/S STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Steel Strips Wheels Limited, Vs. The D.C.I.T.(Tds), Sco 49-50, Sector 26, Sector 17E, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. Pan: Aaccs3003L (Appellant) (Respondent)

226/-, consequent to the Assessing Officer holding it as assessee in default on account of late deposit of TDS of Rs.51,38,361/- u/s 192 of the Act. 3. The brief facts relevant to the issue are that assessee had filed its TDS return which was processed by the Assessing Officer u/s 200A of the Act, wherein he observed that

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.:

226. 3. That the appellant craves permission to amend, add, delete and elaborate the ground of appeal 3. Ground Nos. 1 and 3 are general in nature. 4. The main contention of the Assessee is that the Assessing Officer has wrongly given the findings treating the Assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for failing to deduct tax at source on interest

M/S SONALAC PAINTS AND COATINGS LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), VAISHALI JURISDICTION AT ITO, TDS-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Smt. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Sonalac Paints & Coatings Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Sco Plot No. 768, Indl. Area, Cpc(Tds),Vaishali , Phase-Ii, Chandigarh. Ghaziabad Pan No. Aaics4995D Current Jurisdiction: Ito(Tds-1)Chandigarh. & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Nagpal Trading Co., Vs. The Dcit, Sco No. 1037, Sector 22-B, Cpc(Tds),Vaishali , Chandigarh. Ghaziabad Pan No. Aaefn0052F Current Jurisdiction: Ito(Tds-1)Chandigarh

3. That on the facts, circumstances of the case and in law, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO wherein he had erred in creating a demand of Rs 14,000/- u/s 234E on account of late filing of TDS statement by passing intimation u/s 200A even when the said demand raised through intimation

M/S CHILL POINT ENGINEERS PVT LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Chill Point Engineers P.Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, H.No. 2217, Hem Kutir, Cpc(Tds), Vaishali, Mani Majra, Ghaziabad Chandigarh. Current Jurisdiction: Pan No. Aabcc5144R Ito(Tds-1)Chandigarh. & Assessment Year: 2013-14

3. That on the facts, circumstances of the case and in law, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO wherein he had erred in creating a demand of Rs 12,200/- u/s 234E on account of late filing of TDS statement by passing intimation u/s 200A even when the said demand raised through intimation

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 37 of the I.T. Act to the payer. C) That at page 80 in paragraph 5.4.4 of the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) himself has mentioned, “there is no doubt about the genuineness of the lease agreement”. The Ld. Counsel in this respect has submitted that when the CIT(A) did not have any doubt about the genuineness

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 37 of the I.T. Act to the payer. C) That at page 80 in paragraph 5.4.4 of the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) himself has mentioned, “there is no doubt about the genuineness of the lease agreement”. The Ld. Counsel in this respect has submitted that when the CIT(A) did not have any doubt about the genuineness

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 37 of the I.T. Act to the payer. C) That at page 80 in paragraph 5.4.4 of the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) himself has mentioned, “there is no doubt about the genuineness of the lease agreement”. The Ld. Counsel in this respect has submitted that when the CIT(A) did not have any doubt about the genuineness

M/S SUNDESH SPRINGS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

226 Taxmann 45 (P&H) and also by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) and further of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Shivam Motors (P) Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 277 (All) wherein the Hon’ble High Courts have