M/S AUSTEES HYDRO POWER & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Austees Hydro Power & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Construction Company (P) Ltd., Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, (Hp). Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M & The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Austees Hydro Power & Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Construction Company (P) Ltd., (Hp). Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 244-A and 234-B. 234- 1) of the IT Act, without appreciating the circumstances and fact of the case and not giving any reason on what grounds the interest has been charged / imposed. On this ground also the appeal deserves to be allowed. I That the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Shimla as well

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR vs. M/S AUSTEE HYDRO POWER & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD., BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Austees Hydro Power & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Construction Company (P) Ltd., Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, (Hp). Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M & The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Austees Hydro Power & Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Construction Company (P) Ltd., (Hp). Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 244-A and 234-B. 234- 1) of the IT Act, without appreciating the circumstances and fact of the case and not giving any reason on what grounds the interest has been charged / imposed. On this ground also the appeal deserves to be allowed. I That the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Shimla as well

BATRA EXPORTS,FAZILKA vs. DCIT, |TDS,, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

section 200A of Income tax Act. 1961 did not provide for determination of fee payable u/s 234 E of the Act at the time of processing of TDS

BATRA EXPORTS,FAZILKA vs. DCIT, |TDS,, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

section 200A of Income tax Act. 1961 did not provide for determination of fee payable u/s 234 E of the Act at the time of processing of TDS

ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negi

TDS, addition of Rs.38,307/- on account of disallowance made u/s 36(1) (va) of the Act for not depositing the employee’s contribution welfare funds before the due date and addition of Rs. 20,973/- on account of disallowance u/s 14 A of the Act. However, after allowing set off the unabsorbed depreciation

RAJESH BANSAL,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1447/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

TDS) ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCHES 'B' (2012) 31 CCH 234 Chd. Trib. (2012) 52 SOT 81 (Chandigarh)(URO) 5 A.Y.2012-13 "it is an admitted fact that the amount of tax deducted at source by the assessee (Person Responsible) was paid within the limit under the relevant provisions of the Act—Assessee was prevented by sufficient case from filing the returns within

SH. SAWARN SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO-WARD-4, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

234 B in demand. There is a provision of TDS in respect of payment of interest. If any tax was due then tax should have been deducted by the payer. Payer is assessee in default and department can easily recover it from deductor HUDA. In any case if it is taxable then assessee should be asked to pay only

ST. BEDES EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), VAISHALI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14

234 E through notice u/s 200A imposed by the Ld. Assessing officer. 3. During the course of hearing before us, ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the fees in the present case was levied while ITA No.1707/Chd/2017- St. Bedes Educational Society, Shimla 2 processing the TDS return u/s 200A of the Act, prior to 01.06.2015, and that

M/S LOTUS MACHINES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS-1), VAISHALI CURRENT JURISDCITION ITO (TDS-1), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14

234 E through notice u/s 200A imposed by the Ld. Assessing officer. 3. During the course of hearing before us, ld. counsel for the ITA No.1137/Chd/2017- M/s Lotus Machines Pvt Ltd., Chandigarh 2 assessee stated that the fees in the present case was levied while processing the TDS return u/s 200A of the Act, prior to 01.06.2015, and that

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS and proof of depositing the same was enclosed at assessee's Paper Book pages 1638- 1776. The ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that there are so many sub contractors and as per the alleged documents found from the premises of the Chartered Accountant Shri Gurinder Kumar Garg, the total parties are more than 150 which include the alleged

DCIT, C-4, LUDHIANA vs. M/S AARTI STEELS LIMITED, LUDHIANA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1619/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09 The Dcit, Circle-4, बनाम M/S Aarti Steels Ltd., Ludhiana G.T. Raod, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No:Aabca4455D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 115JAA of the Act at Rs.4,62,96,497/- which again did not include surcharge and cess. The net tax liability was thus arrived at Rs. 8,48,03,029/- (Rs. 13,11,08,526 – Rs.4,62,95,497/-). On the same surcharge @ 10% and education cess @ 3% was added and also interest u/s 234 C was levied thus

DCIT, C-4, LUDHIANA vs. AARTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, LUDHIANA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1619/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09 The Dcit, Circle-4, बनाम M/S Aarti Steels Ltd., Ludhiana G.T. Raod, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No:Aabca4455D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 115JAA of the Act at Rs.4,62,96,497/- which again did not include surcharge and cess. The net tax liability was thus arrived at Rs. 8,48,03,029/- (Rs. 13,11,08,526 – Rs.4,62,95,497/-). On the same surcharge @ 10% and education cess @ 3% was added and also interest u/s 234 C was levied thus

DCIT, C-4, LUDHIANA vs. AARTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, LUDHIANA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1619/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09 The Dcit, Circle-4, बनाम M/S Aarti Steels Ltd., Ludhiana G.T. Raod, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No:Aabca4455D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 115JAA of the Act at Rs.4,62,96,497/- which again did not include surcharge and cess. The net tax liability was thus arrived at Rs. 8,48,03,029/- (Rs. 13,11,08,526 – Rs.4,62,95,497/-). On the same surcharge @ 10% and education cess @ 3% was added and also interest u/s 234 C was levied thus

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

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)

TDS is also deducted on salary payment made by Ludhiana Unit and not Haridwar Unit. 12. The Ld. A.O. has also made the remarks that "but is it believable that the Haridwar Unit started functioning without any technical help or transfer of knowledge from the older unit." 13. It is a fact that for establishing of Haridwar Unit, the company

ASSTT. 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)

TDS is also deducted on salary payment made by Ludhiana Unit and not Haridwar Unit. 12. The Ld. A.O. has also made the remarks that "but is it believable that the Haridwar Unit started functioning without any technical help or transfer of knowledge from the older unit." 13. It is a fact that for establishing of Haridwar Unit, the company

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)

TDS is also deducted on salary payment made by Ludhiana Unit and not Haridwar Unit. 12. The Ld. A.O. has also made the remarks that "but is it believable that the Haridwar Unit started functioning without any technical help or transfer of knowledge from the older unit." 13. It is a fact that for establishing of Haridwar Unit, the company

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)

TDS is also deducted on salary payment made by Ludhiana Unit and not Haridwar Unit. 12. The Ld. A.O. has also made the remarks that "but is it believable that the Haridwar Unit started functioning without any technical help or transfer of knowledge from the older unit." 13. It is a fact that for establishing of Haridwar Unit, the company